Superman/Clark Kent/Kal-El Characterization - Part 1

[Lily Adler]

Yes, and we as fans will not be happy until they are portrayed as such.

Spoiler

Cue the Iron Justice League!

 

[Karem-Knight]

Some think that Batman should fight crime forever, he should never give up, he should patrol the streets daily and stop every crime that he comes across, even if the Cops are doing their jobs correctly.

Similarly, Superman should be perfect, he is the real person who helps others all the time (except when he is Clark Kent, which is a fake identity he has created.).

Superman should be working without a rest, after all, he doesn't get tired or need food (Sunlight provides him more than sufficient energy.) he should be dealing with World's problems continuously without break. He shouldn't lead a life that normal humans do, even as Clark Kent, as that is not a real person.



That is a very boring characterization and completely removes the human side to these heroes and makes them look like Robots.

Wtf!!!? Everywhere else except the Nolan movies he does do that. In fact, everyone complains that he's borderline obsessive and outright ignores his time as Bruce Wayne to concentrate on being Batman. Are you telling me someone so wrapped up in his crusade, no matter how good the intentions are is ultimately damaging to his own well being, isn't interesting. It's much more on par with the tragic hero than Nolan's Batman (who still did show the obsessive nature in smaller fragments).

Goddammit- everyone else on the Justice League go on about how his willpower and drive are those beyond even ****ing Gods. It's his obsession with justice that has defined his life. I'm all for different interpretations but Batman does not half ass his efforts and never quits a battle, hell when he's just Bruce Wayne and saw someone being attacked the first thing he would do is intervene- cause that's who he is.

I agree on you with Superman, but it's much more interesting seeing a human being dealing with the godlike power without being corrupted about it while still living a normal life. But no fan wants to see a Superman just saving and fighting stuff for 2 and half hours, we're here for the characters. That was the reason they put the Fortress of Solitude in the comics, for Superman to dwell on his alien and human life.

And please, these characterizations are not "boring" there wouldn't be 70 years of comics if they were.

 

[Herolee10]

I think Superman/Clark is capable of being corrupted, but not in the way that one would normally be. What I'm talking about is that, when it comes to him, I could see corruption being developed under the disguise/veil of a good cause and reasoning.....which all ties back to my belief that Superman is the type of person that doesn't question as to whether he should do a good thing, but IF he's doing the right thing.

His desire to help people, and guilt when he's unable to despite all of his god like powers can be used as a weapon against him by the right opponent. Some scenarios in other mediums have shown Superman taking a very militaristic approach towards handling the affairs of the world after having suffered a personal casualty and believing it to have happened because he wasn't doing "enough" for the world.

And when you dig underneath the surface of all of this, you could definitely have people relating to the core of the issues that troubles superman:

1. A person feeling helpless in a given situation.

2. Working so hard in order to do something very right but potentially losing yourself in the process and forgetting as to why you even did it in the first place.

3. Feeling very alienated among other individuals when you're at that given age in your life (primarily in your youth)

etc.


Like someone else had mentioned earlier, just as how people admire Batman for having that unbreakable will of his to fight for justice despite being an ordinary human and never giving up...I think one of Superman's biggest admirable traits is his ability to overcome the temptations and corruption that having powers such as his can present, because let's face it, there have been a good number of real life individuals in past and present where they had a lot of power at their disposal and while they may have started out noble, they ended becoming a victim of their own powers.

 

[Micromind]

Wtf!!!? Everywhere else except the Nolan movies he does do that. In fact, everyone complains that he's borderline obsessive and outright ignores his time as Bruce Wayne to concentrate on being Batman. Are you telling me someone so wrapped up in his crusade, no matter how good the intentions are is ultimately damaging to his own well being, isn't interesting. It's much more on par with the tragic hero than Nolan's Batman (who still did show the obsessive nature in smaller fragments).

That is comics version of Batman, the movies cannot continue beyond one or two sequels using such an approach then the Batman movies begin to focus more on villains than hero as all that needs to be shown about the protagonist's personality is pretty much covered in his first two movies.


Yes Batman is an obsessive vigilante who is a loner but even he must be adaptable to change in circumstances, such as drop in crime rate, letting the Cops do their job, intervene only when the situation demands him to act.

And try to lead a normal life, even though he may not be successful in doing that, otherwise the character becomes one dimensional and boring after two or three movies.

Remember, the medium such as movie caters to general audience first and not to hard core comics fans.

The true test of a fictional character is that he should be open to different interpretations and survive all that while maintaining his popularity, Batman and Superman can take all forms of interpretations. (IMO.)

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Honestly, that's the tiredest arguement i've ever heard.

Thanks.

Because in my opinion, if Siegel and Shuster were alive today and reading all the interesting and passionate posts in this thread, their responses wouldn't just be - 'No. You're wrong. Because we say so.'

You don't know that.

I'm sure they'd just be absolutely ecstatic that people are taking all this time and effort to give their simple character such a deep consideration.

Caring about the character enough to truly try and put yourself in his shoes, to truly try and understand how a character like that's life would evolve naturally in our world... that's not some kind of affront to the creators.

It celebrates them!

Not to mention that fact that, if they were alive today, do you think they'd still be writing Superman stories in a style that fits only in the past?

Even Siegel and Shuster would have evolved their character to fit with the current trends and possibilities within comic books.

So why is it such a bad thing that the writers who have taken him on since, have done just that?

Saying "Your whole idea of being Superman disguised as Clark Kent" doesn't really celebrate the character. It negates the whole point of it!

And Superman comics evolved all the time. No way the Golden Age Superman (where Clark Kent was a total disguise but he didn't think of himself as a Kryptonian) and the Silver/Bronze Age Superman (felt very Kryptonian but the Clark Kent disguise was given more room and questions about it arose) are the same.

But what came after that was not an "evolution". It's a different character. I've said this 1000 times.

And... newsflash: The character would have changed anyway as comics changed.

And dozens and dozens of other writers, artists and creators, including filmmakers and animators. He has evolved from what he began as, which is a simplified version of the character we know today.

He hasn't evolved. He was killed in 1986 and replaced.

Superman has never been shown not to understand humans.

not that drastically, but he has been shown to have is problems (last time All-Star). Of course you know better, you are The Guard.

And wouldn't the idea that Superman doesn't get humans be a nice and "deep" idea you like so much instead of "HOOHOO raised as Human!!!"

Remembering Krypton doesn't mean you ARE Krypton, or that being Kryptonian is all that you are, or that it informs your personality, morality and values. Just that you're from there, with abilities that derive from your Kryptonian birthright.

And yet it happened.

And that idea still very much exists today. Even if Clark Kent creates Superman as a persona for him to become, and Clark Kent isn't just a disguise, the nerdy, somewhat repressed, often overlooked "normal" guy can STILL secretly put on a colorful, inspirational suit and save the world with amazing powers, and still have to disguise all that he can do when he's not wearing the suit by changing his mannerisims. Why people don't understand this is beyond me.

Because Superman has to be his true self. Not just "another act" performed by the true "Smallville" Clark Kent next to the "Metropolis Clark". Whatever you people use these days to describe them.

You don't have to lose what made those early Superman stories great to accept Clark and Supermanas equal parts of the mythology.

Oh. Clark Kent is actually the main part. As it makes Superman unique. But yet he is not his true self. Superman is.

Yes it is important. Because A, modern audiences care about relatable characters. And B, it’s been an aspect of Superman’s character for the last 30-40 years. Just about as long as “Clark is the disguise” was. So its a valid and accepted reading of the character.

1986 - 1939 = 48 years.
2012 - 1986 = 26 years. (I am being generous there since in the last 10 years they didn't really use the Byrne version)

In terms of powers existing, perhaps. In terms of what we can physically do.

Not in terms of developing a personality, our morality, our values, etc.

No, also in terms of personality and everything that follows out of it. Heavily. Please pick up some books, as science advances it becomes even more clear every day. Genes are found that seem to determine certain traits more and more. The public and social science just didn't pick this up yet.

So Superman being more Kryptonian is totally in line with modern science. That was deep thinking done by the Silver and Bronze Age guys, I guess.

 

[The Batman]

Superman is not real. He is the result of Siegel and Shuster.

He is not human. he has a Kryptonian brain and cannot completely understand humans.

For a long time he actually remembered Krypton.

And it's how the character is supposed to be.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, I'd much prefer a Superman closer to Golden Age/Bronze Age ideas than Bryne. And clearly, DC does too as they just returned to that characterization and just modernized it.

The "Superman has no fake persona" argument basically translates to a Superman who is like Dean Cain...where you can't tell the difference between Clark and Superman. Superman should always have that sense of duality in his character. Its what has made him interesting all these years, not the John Bryne characterization.

 

[The Guard]

Wtf!!!? Everywhere else except the Nolan movies he does do that. In fact, everyone complains that he's borderline obsessive and outright ignores his time as Bruce Wayne to concentrate on being Batman. Are you telling me someone so wrapped up in his crusade, no matter how good the intentions are is ultimately damaging to his own well being, isn't interesting. It's much more on par with the tragic hero than Nolan's Batman (who still did show the obsessive nature in smaller fragments).

No he doesn't. He is obsessive, but rarely does Bruce Wayne ignore his time as Bruce Wayne. Rather, he uses it to further his mission to protect Gotham City. There are very few times in the comics where Wayne has legitimately neglected his affairs as Wayne.

I think Superman/Clark is capable of being corrupted, but not in the way that one would normally be. What I'm talking about is that, when it comes to him, I could see corruption being developed under the disguise/veil of a good cause and reasoning.....which all ties back to my belief that Superman is the type of person that doesn't question as to whether he should do a good thing, but IF he's doing the right thing.

His desire to help people, and guilt when he's unable to despite all of his god like powers can be used as a weapon against him by the right opponent. Some scenarios in other mediums have shown Superman taking a very militaristic approach towards handling the affairs of the world after having suffered a personal casualty and believing it to have happened because he wasn't doing "enough" for the world.

Like someone else had mentioned earlier, just as how people admire Batman for having that unbreakable will of his to fight for justice despite being an ordinary human and never giving up...I think one of Superman's biggest admirable traits is his ability to overcome the temptations and corruption that having powers such as his can present, because let's face it, there have been a good number of real life individuals in past and present where they had a lot of power at their disposal and while they may have started out noble, they ended becoming a victim of their own powers.

Agreed, and well said.

 

[The Guard]

He hasn't evolved. He was killed in 1986 and replaced.

No, he evolved.

The mid to late 80's and MAN OF STEEL was the focal point of that evolution, but both Clark Kent/Superman were evolving as characters all through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. MAN OF STEEL just crystallized this evolution.

not that drastically, but he has been shown to have is problems (last time All-Star)

He has been shown to have his issues with humanity’s actions many times…but never to actually not understand them.

And wouldn't the idea that Superman doesn't get humans be a nice and "deep" idea you like so much instead of "HOOHOO raised as Human!!!"

Not really, no.

And yet it happened

And yet what happened?

Because Superman has to be his true self. Not just "another act" performed by the true "Smallville" Clark Kent next to the "Metropolis Clark". Whatever you people use these days to describe them.

And what is Superman’s “true self”? Where does that come from?

Oh. Clark Kent is actually the main part. As it makes Superman unique. But yet he is not his true self. Superman is.

Except that Superman IS Clark.

1986 - 1939 = 48 years.
2012 - 1986 = 26 years. (I am being generous there since in the last 10 years they didn't really use the Byrne version)

Which would be a third of his existence as a character, and all 30 years since the modern age of comics began. It’s kind of a moot point, because your timeline is faulty. Clark Kent was hardly portrayed as “just” the disguise until 1986. The focus on Clark started to change in the late sixties, and went through the seventies and eighties. He had an actual personality and a life as Clark Kent long before Byrne's MAN OF STEEL.

No, also in terms of personality and everything that follows out of it. Heavily. Please pick up some books, as science advances it becomes even more clear every day. Genes are found that seem to determine certain traits more and more. The public and social science just didn't pick this up yet.

Why you're using one side of human science to explain a Kryptonian is beyond me. A human being’s personality does not just come from a particular gene. A human may have traits that inform their personality, but genes do not cause us to become certain types of people in a vacuum.

There are more books than the ones you read, apparently.

So Superman being more Kryptonian is totally in line with modern science. That was deep thinking done by the Silver and Bronze Age guys, I guess.

No it wasn’t.

It was an easy way to explain where his powers came from, drawn from other mythologies.

By your own admission, they were writing wish fulfilment stories.

 

[The Guard]

The "Superman has no fake persona" argument basically translates to a Superman who is like Dean Cain...where you can't tell the difference between Clark and Superman. Superman should always have that sense of duality in his character. Its what has made him interesting all these years, not the John Bryne characterization.

What's made Superman interesting is having layers of meaning and relevance. Kryptonian. Human. Mythological. Psychological. The combination of the two heritages in Superman, and how those intersect. That's always what made his stories and character explorations interesting going back to the Golden Age "imaginary stories". That's not tied to Superman being "real" and Clark being a facade. Even with the modern version of Superman, these elements exist. If anything, they're highlighted, because he, as a character, is aware of them as issues, elements of him that require balance.

 

[The Batman]

What's made Superman interesting is having layers of meaning and relevance. Kryptonian. Human. Mythological. Psychological. The combination of the two heritages in Superman, and how those intersect.

Yes. That's what I meant by dual natures. Old school Superman, the one everyone likes to call one dimensional, has those elements, judt not told in a modern manner of storytelling.

That's always what made his stories and character explorations interesting going back to the Golden Age "imaginary stories". That's not tied to Superman being "real" and Clark being a facade. Even with the modern version of Superman, these elements exist. If anything, they're highlighted, because he, as a character, is aware of them as issues, elements of him that require balance.

Well, if thats the case, then, by your own words, we can have a superman where superman is "Real" and clark is "fake". Because as long as it has the other elements you describe, it dosent matter how they approach the "real or fake" argument.

 

[UaalaDan]

Nope. It's better when they are not defined as real or fake but that he has a split personality or is multi-layered.

And yet, in terms of personality, Superman is completely real though even though he is meant to be symbol. That is Clark using his powers to help people. I'd say Metropolis Clark is more of a facade than Superman is, imo, in terms of masking certain traits like powers, vision problems, build, even though I think he loves the simple things in life like going to the movies, playing games, etc.

I wouldn't define Superman is real, Clark is fake. That is just a simplistic view that doesn't really explain the character, imo. I'd say Superman is a product of Clark's upbringing and biology but he also lies when he says he doesn't have a family or friends and all. Metropolis Clark is what would happen if Superman was an ordinary guy. Mild-mannared, quiet and nice, like Jonathan Kent. I don't like the stupid bafoon Chris Reeve version.

I like the Maggin explanation that Clark is Superman's dream or what he was before donning the costume. He definitely is NOT his critique on mankind, like Kill Bills explanation. That would mean Superman considers himself above humanity and that's not who he is at all. He wants to save people but ALSO wants to have a normal life and tries his best to do it, sometimes even gets lost in this quest, but he can never achieve that because...he is more than normal and because of his duty.

To sum things up, I think Clark/Superman is an achievement of balance between his human and kryptonian traits. Neither completely real or fake after all Clark is Superman is Clark.

 

[The Guard]

I like the Maggin explanation that Clark is Superman's dream or what he was before donning the costume. He definitely is NOT his critique on mankind, like Kill Bills explanation. That would mean Superman considers himself above humanity and that's not who he is at all. He wants to save people but ALSO wants to have a normal life and tries his best to do it, sometimes even gets lost in this quest, but he can never achieve that because...he is more than normal and because of his duty.

To sum things up, I think Clark/Superman is an achievement of balance between his human and kryptonian traits. Neither completely real or fake after all Clark is Superman is Clark.

This.

There's no reason to shortchange Kal-El, Clark Kent or Superman by declaring them "fake".

 

[The Sage]

Man, I remember when we used to discuss this topic ad nauseum.

My thoughts:

Superman is the real person. Clark Kent is the persona.

When I say that, I mean this: the adult mild-mannered Clark Kent that works at the Daily Planet and walks the Earth is a persona. He changes his personality to hide who he is, from the different mannerisms, voice tone, even the slouching. He's attempting to be a normal human being. Is it meaningless? No, he likes being Clark Kent. Being Clark Kent allows him to take a break from being Superman. Not only that, but hit allows him to fight his fight using his skill as a reporter.

As Superman, it is my belief that he doesn't change his personality. He's not attempting to act as a normal human being. He's not pretending to be confident--he is confident. It's not a mask. And he's using his powers, not hiding them from the public.

 

[UaalaDan]

Meh, that view is too simplistic for my tastes.

Btw, Sage,

...got me on my knees. I`m begging darling please. Darling won't you ease my worried mind?

 

[DeadPresident29]

Story/character wise Goyer will probably do with MoS what he did with TDK Trilogy and attempt to capture the essence of the character as opposed to concerning himself with pedantic discrepancies between the different eras. Simplicity is a far better formula than trying to satisfy as many squabbling Superman fan factions. Concentrating on themes of alienation and duality in a simple and well told way is more likely to resonate with a larger audience than focusing on details from a particular era or story arc.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You actually answered your own question at the end.

Where? I don't see it...

I'm just not comfortable with any part of the Superman persona being a lie.

But it is. Unless the whole world knows the truth about Superman, part of that persona is a lie. All his interations with people as Superman are as they are because they believe him to be something he is not.

I suppose the reason I want it clearly defined is because if it goes it isn't it can easily go in the opposite direction and I don't think it's as interesting.

I'm not sure I understand this sentance

I'm glad you agree on the defining aspect of the character. I hope you don't think I'm disregarding Clark Kent. I don't think he woke up one day at age 25, had an epiphany, decided to be a superhero, and Clark Kent ceased to exist. Clark Kent is the man wearing the cape, saving people's lives. He also disguises himself when he goes to work at The Planet so that he can help people though a different means (his writing). Of course that isn't the only reason for going to work at the Daily Planet but you get the idea. When I say Superman is the real person and Clark Kent is the disguise, I don't mean to dismiss Clark Kent. Superman is the real Clark Kent.

I like that line. It's a much nicer way of putting it

I do understand what you're saying, and I suspect that's the kind of thing we'll be seeing in MOS.

It's weirdly also what they tried to do with Smallville towards the end.

I don't wanna deny who I am when i'm out there doing what I was born to do. When i'm out there in the red and blue and i'm saving people, that's who I really am. And I know this is going to sound weird, but it's not what i'm called that should define who I am. It's who I am that should define what i'm called. Clark Kent... it's just a name. It's just a word. I am the blur and I always have been.

You'd think i'd hate that speech. But I don't. I think the nature of Clark Kent/Superman is one of the things the got right a lot of the time.

It's not that I think Superman should be some fake thing Clark does. Or that he should be a really dorky, nervous guy who just pretends to be all brave and heroic.

It's just that I'd prefer it if people don't think that the guy who put on the suit is some kryptonian saviour all distant from humanity who watches over us from afar...

... he's the guy who was raised on a farm by the kents, who has friends and loved ones and is influenced by his human upbringing.

Like that speech says, the name 'Clark Kent' is just that. It's just a name, and it's a name that he can sacrifice in order to use it for a cover. He gives up those words defining his identity, because he needs a secret identity.

But it doesn't make him any less 'that person' that he was 5 minutes ago.

I think we're pretty much on the same page TBH.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

You don't know that.

I didn't say I know that.

My EXACT words were 'Because in my opinion'. Right there at the top of what you quoted.

Saying "Your whole idea of being Superman disguised as Clark Kent" doesn't really celebrate the character. It negates the whole point of it!

And Superman comics evolved all the time. No way the Golden Age Superman (where Clark Kent was a total disguise but he didn't think of himself as a Kryptonian) and the Silver/Bronze Age Superman (felt very Kryptonian but the Clark Kent disguise was given more room and questions about it arose) are the same.

I don't know where you got the impression I think Gold, Silver and Bronze Age Superman are the same?

I am saying that comic books evolve with the times, and that even Siegel and Shuster would have recognised the trends of today and evolved Superman along with them - much like all the other writers have tried too since them.

Some have failed. Others have succeeded.

But it's this complete resistance to any evolution beyond the mortal lives of the creators that baffles me.

Should he just be frozen in time?

They were happy to make changes to him as time went by. They would have wanted him to continue changing to be relevant.

But what came after that was not an "evolution". It's a different character. I've said this 1000 times.

And you can say it a thousand more, it won't make it truth.

And... newsflash: The character would have changed anyway as comics changed.

I don't understand how that's a newsflash, when that was my entire point...

As Superman, it is my belief that he doesn't change his personality. He's not attempting to act as a normal human being. He's not pretending to be confident--he is confident. It's not a mask. And he's using his powers, not hiding them from the public.

But he is pretending that he is completely alien to this world.

He is pretending he didn't grow up on a farm in Kansas. He is pretending he does not have earth parents, and went to school and has close friends and a job.

He is STILL pretending as Superman, to be someone that is not completely true.

Neither are real. Clark Kent and Superman are two parts of one real person.

 

[The Batman]

Man, I remember when we used to discuss this topic ad nauseum.

My thoughts:

Superman is the real person. Clark Kent is the persona.

When I say that, I mean this: the adult mild-mannered Clark Kent that works at the Daily Planet and walks the Earth is a persona. He changes his personality to hide who he is, from the different mannerisms, voice tone, even the slouching. He's attempting to be a normal human being. Is it meaningless? No, he likes being Clark Kent. Being Clark Kent allows him to take a break from being Superman. Not only that, but hit allows him to fight his fight using his skill as a reporter.

As Superman, it is my belief that he doesn't change his personality. He's not attempting to act as a normal human being. He's not pretending to be confident--he is confident. It's not a mask. And he's using his powers, not hiding them from the public.

This.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

But he is pretending that he is completely alien to this world.

He is pretending he didn't grow up on a farm in Kansas. He is pretending he does not have earth parents, and went to school and has close friends and a job.

He is STILL pretending as Superman, to be someone that is not completely true.

Neither are real. Clark Kent and Superman are two parts of one real person.

Actually, Superman is always open about the fact that he was raised on Earth. He never says otherwise, he's equally honest about the fact that he was sent from Krypton as a baby. Obviously he doesn't say where he was raised, but he always let's people know of his upbringing. Isn't that even in STM?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Actually, Superman is always open about the fact that he was raised on Earth. He never says otherwise, he's equally honest about the fact that he was sent from Krypton as a baby. Obviously he doesn't say where he was raised, but he always let's people know of his upbringing. Isn't that even in STM?

I don't remember this at all, in any story

Feel free to prove me wrong tho...

I don't know how that would even make sense though... if people knew he was sent to earth as a baby and was raised on earth, they'd know he has a human identity... and they'd be constantly trying to catch him out on it, trying to tag him, follow him, use face recognition software etc.

 

[UaalaDan]

Exactly. If he was open about it, that would be awful or it would make no sense.

 

[The Guard]

Story/character wise Goyer will probably do with MoS what he did with TDK Trilogy and attempt to capture the essence of the character as opposed to concerning himself with pedantic discrepancies between the different eras.

Hopefully he and the other writers do that by capturing the essence of the character, not cherrypicking which "essence" they like.

He is STILL pretending as Superman, to be someone that is not completely true.

Neither are real. Clark Kent and Superman are two parts of one real person.

Exactly.

Except that both are real. They're just not always being 100% honest.

Actually, Superman is always open about the fact that he was raised on Earth. He never says otherwise, he's equally honest about the fact that he was sent from Krypton as a baby. Obviously he doesn't say where he was raised, but he always let's people know of his upbringing. Isn't that even in STM?

I have never seen this to be a consistent staple of the mythology. I'm not even sure I've ever seen this.

 

[UaalaDan]

I have never seen this to be a consistent staple of the mythology. I'm not even sure I've ever seen this.

Actually, now that I remember, there was a story in the comics in post-crisis that Lois is doing research in Smallville and the Kents, to avoid her suspicions, tell Lois that they raised Superman as Clark's brother. Does that even make sense?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

I don't remember this at all, in any story

Feel free to prove me wrong tho...

I don't know how that would even make sense though... if people knew he was sent to earth as a baby and was raised on earth, they'd know he has a human identity... and they'd be constantly trying to catch him out on it, trying to tag him, follow him, use face recognition software etc.

In-universe, Superman has had at least two museums and one theme park dedicated to him (proceeds went to charity), and each one explained the basics of his origins to the general public.

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[hopefuldreamer]

In-universe, Superman has had at least two museums and one theme park dedicated to him (proceeds went to charity), and each one explained the basics of his origins to the general public.

Weren't those in the future?

I mean, I remember stuff like that in Legion based stories... but not in present day ones.

You got any specifics on where I can find these stories you're talking about?