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

[Wheels]

If Clark has to pretend he is someone else when he is Superman, it nullifies both the fact that Superman shows his face and the fact that he puts on glasses and acts like a nobody in the Planet.

Superman doesn't act differently when he puts on his cape, he just gets to he himself, he acts differently when he puts on the glasses. It's other people that think he is infallible, he doesn't hold press conferences where he can be this holier than thou saviour for humankind.

People act differently under certain circumstances all the time, but the that doesn't mean that they aren't expressing aspects of their true self. Clark Kent is more than just a disguise, He is what Kal EL uses to have a life outside of being a hero. He is allowed to express his more intimate desires as Clark He is allowed to do things as Clark that he obviously views as important for his well being. Kal EL is a hero but he also clearly is more than that.as well.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If Clark has to pretend he is someone else when he is Superman, it nullifies both the fact that Superman shows his face and the fact that he puts on glasses and acts like a nobody in the Planet.

Superman doesn't act differently when he puts on his cape, he just gets to he himself, he acts differently when he puts on the glasses. It's other people that think he is infallible, he doesn't hold press conferences where he can be this holier than thou saviour for humankind.

The idea that Clark isn't pretending to be someone else while he runs around in a homemade costume calling himself Superman is pretty hilarious. Why does he put the suit and cape on then if it isn't a disguise? I wonder if he gets into bed with Lois, when they are together, in the full suit.

Also for the bold bit. Two words. Justice. League.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

No one is saying that simplicity is bad. Some people just view the identify situation as more complex due to the fact that the Superman character is a humanoid alien raised by earthlings, and he also has many human traits. Humans aren't cut and dry, so it's only natural that some don't view Superman as cut a dry.

The idea that Superman is Superman and disguised himself as Clark Kent is simple but its implications are way more complex. He basically has two personalities, one is the real one, the other one is the act that took a life of its own in some ways.

Superman being many sides just in different situations, from Clark Kent to Kal-El to Superman and whatever is nothing really unique or fresh. It's ordinary. It applies to virtually everyone. Not very interesting.

My stance is clear, I am in line with the creator's intentions and I find that way more interesting.

 

[true316]

Clark did. It is an idea you hear in the newest trailer when Jor-El speaks. Superman is a ideal, an example for the people to strive towards.



Oh I know Clark knows he isn't perfect. But that is not what his Superman persona is suppose to represent. That is why Clark Kent doesn't go out saving the day and setting an example for mankind. Superman does.



Constantly would be wrong, but he does it on occasion. He executed three people. I don't remember him turning Wonder Woman over to the authorities after she committed murder.



The end of The Dark Knight showed exactly why.

I like the Jor-El trailer. My favorite part is when he said we would join Superman in the sun. That would be kind of hard to do if the ideal he is presenting us with is "impossible."

Also, thanks for backing up my point about Superman's approach to justice. Out of the millions of times Superman has taken down bad guys you mentioned two examples to the contrary. And one of those times, when he wasn't able to hand those criminals to the authorities (because those authorities were all dead), Superman ended up so overcome with guilt that he temporarily started losing his mind and exiled himself from Earth. Like I said 99.9% of the time we see a different approach from Superman.

Also I think it's interesting you mention the end of The Dark Knight. One of the points I got from TDKR is that Batman and Gordon were wrong to do what they did at the end of TDK. Officer Blake makes that pretty clear. In the end you aren't better off deliberately misleading people for their own good.

It's one thing to mislead people to protect your loved ones. It's an entirely different thing to mislead people by giving them false hope. If Superman is just a "role" that Clark Kent is playing that is exactly what he's doing.

If Clark has to pretend he is someone else when he is Superman, it nullifies both the fact that Superman shows his face and the fact that he puts on glasses and acts like a nobody in the Planet.

Superman doesn't act differently when he puts on his cape, he just gets to he himself, he acts differently when he puts on the glasses. It's other people that think he is infallible, he doesn't hold press conferences where he can be this holier than thou saviour for humankind.

Exactly! I don't believe you ever see a truer expression of who this man is than when he's saving someone's life. When he's wearing the costume doing great things, he's not pretending. He's just being himself.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The idea that Superman is Superman and disguised himself as Clark Kent is simple but its implications are way more complex. He basically has two personalities, one is the real one, the other one is the act that took a life of its own in some ways.

Superman being many sides just in different situations, from Clark Kent to Kal-El to Superman and whatever is nothing really unique or fresh. It's ordinary. It applies to virtually everyone. Not very interesting.

My stance is clear, I am in line with the creator's intentions and I find that way more interesting.

All of that would make perfect sense if Kal-el had grown up on Krypton and ended up on earth somehow as an adult.

Then Superman would be the real person, but perhaps he would pretend to be a normal earth man in order to learn about the world and about people on a smaller scale.

Then I could see that Clark Kent was absolutely an act, that became very important to him, and that he enjoys having as part of his life.

That makes logical, rational and psychological sense.

But he didn't.

He came to earth as a BABY.

He's spent his entire life with the identity Clark Kent, and the only thing that changes when he finds out he is from Krypton is that he knows why he is different, and why he can do the things he does.

It simply doesn't make psychological sense for a man to find out their true heritage and suddenly just stop being the person you were. You can't erase all your memories, all your thoughts, your entire personality up to then and decide 'Okay, i'm not Clark Kent anymore, i'm this new person, but i'm still going to dress up like the old me and have fun pretending to still be him sometimes.'

That's just illogical.

I completely accept that Metropolis Clark is a version of himself that includes fake characteristics, and that Superman is the persona where he can be more himself. I completely accept that, given a choice, he will always choose to be Superman over Metropolis Clark (though it would make him incredibly unhappy).

But that underneath the suit - that's still the guy who grew up on a farm in kansas, went to school, played games, watched movies, has favourite foods and music and books, has friends and people from his past.

And those things aren't Superman. Superman didn't grow up on a farm or go to school etc.

Those things are part of the Clark that exists underneath both disguises.

How anyone can ignore the sheer rationalism of that, is beyond me.

 

[true316]

All of that would make perfect sense if Kal-el had grown up on Krypton and ended up on earth somehow as an adult.

Then Superman would be the real person, but perhaps he would pretend to be a normal earth man in order to learn about the world and about people on a smaller scale.

Then I could see that Clark Kent was absolutely an act, that became very important to him, and that he enjoys having as part of his life.

That makes logical, rational and psychological sense.

But he didn't.

He came to earth as a BABY.

He's spent his entire life with the identity Clark Kent, and the only thing that changes when he finds out he is from Krypton is that he knows why he is different, and why he can do the things he does.

It simply doesn't make psychological sense for a man to find out their true heritage and suddenly decide 'Okay, i'm not Clark Kent anymore, i'm this new person, but i'm still going to dress up like the old me and have fun pretending to still be him sometimes.'

That's just illogical.

I completely accept that Metropolis Clark is a version of himself that includes fake characteristics, and that Superman is the persona where he can be more himself. I completely accept that, given a choice, he will always choose to be Superman over Metropolis Clark (though it would make him incredibly unhappy).

But that person wearing the suit - that's still the guy who grew up on a farm in kansas, went to school, played games, watched movies, has favourite foods and music and books, has friends and people from his past.

And those things aren't Superman. Superman didn't grow up on a farm or go to school etc.

Those things are part of the Clark that exists underneath both disguises.

How anyone can ignore the sheer rationalism of that, is beyond me.

I appreciate what you're saying but I have to disagree to a certain extent.

Superman is the man that the little boy from Smallville grew up to be. Clark Kent grew up to be the world's greatest hero. It doesn't matter that no one knows his name is Clark. His real personality is being expressed when he's out there saving lives. I don't even differentiate between Superman and Clark on the farm. To me the only difference is the clothes he wears.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I appreciate what you're saying but I have to disagree to a certain extent.

Superman is the man that the little boy from Smallville grew up to be. Clark Kent grew up to be the world's greatest hero. It doesn't matter that no one knows his name is Clark. His real personality is being expressed when he's out there saving lives. I don't even differentiate between Superman and Clark on the farm. To me the only difference is the clothes he wears.

Do you understand where I'm coming from?

Yeah I totally do

I just think a lot of people, when they say 'Superman is real, Clark Kent is the disguise' don't appreciate that at all.

Besides, I think there is an element of 'acting' when he's Superman as well. I mean, he can't TOTALLY be himself as Superman. Because like I said there are parts of him that Superman just isn't. Superman is pretending that he is NOT human, that he hasn't grown up on earth, that he is not 'one of us'. That identity is not the truth.

Superman can't just go for dinner with a friend at a restaurant. He can't go for a stroll in the park. He can't go to the cinema.

I mean, he can, but not without being mauled by people.

Those are the things that he can ONLY do as Clark Kent, and that's why Clark is more than just a disguise. Clark is literally half of his identity.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

The idea that Clark isn't pretending to be someone else while he runs around in a homemade costume

Point 1- Home made. Exactly. Doesn't matter by which parent, it's from his home.

Point 2- The cape is a uniform in which he gets to be himself.

calling himself Superman is pretty hilarious.

Point 3-Clark doesn't come up with the name Superman.

Why does he put the suit and cape on then if it isn't a disguise?

It's not a disguise, for the very basic reason in that it cannot function as a disguise because he's is not disguising his identity. He is showing it for the world to see. That is one of the most important things about Superman. He shows his face to everyone.

Is Iron Man's armour a disguise? Not it's a uniform.

Clark Kent, on the other hand, wears glasses to hide his face, ill fitting clothes to distort the visage of his body, acts like a buffoon and only has four friends because he doesn't act like himself.

That sounds much more like a disguise now doesn't it?

I wonder if he gets into bed with Lois, when they are together, in the full suit.

Also for the bold bit. Two words. Justice. League.

He was called in to do that, because other people think he is perfect. The only one that Superman called himself was to announce he was going to disband the Justice League because he made a mistake.

 

[true316]

Yeah I totally do

I just think a lot of people, when they say 'Superman is real, Clark Kent is the disguise' don't appreciate that at all.

Besides, I think there is an element of 'acting' when he's Superman as well. I mean, he can't TOTALLY be himself as Superman. Because like I said there are parts of him that Superman just isn't. Superman is pretending that he is NOT human, that he hasn't grown up on earth, that he is not 'one of us'. That identity is not the truth.

Superman can't just go for dinner with a friend at a restaurant. He can't go for a stroll in the park. He can't go to the cinema.

I mean, he can, but not without being mauled by people.

Those are the things that he can ONLY do as Clark Kent, and that's why Clark is more than just a disguise. Clark is literally half of his identity.

I wouldn't doubt that spending time with friends would be important for him but I don't think it's what defines him. To me, Superman will always be defined by his compassion for people in need.

I think it's exciting to meet someone who has a real passion for something. A great doctor has a passion for making advances in the medical field. A great teacher has a passion for educating children. Superman has a passion for making other people's lives better.

The way I view the character, everything he does will be driven by the goal of helping people. Through his writing Clark Kent can help people in a way that Superman can't. I think that's where a part of the importance of Clark Kent comes from. But as highly as a value that, I still think the clearest picture of who he is found when you see him in action as Superman.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I like the Jor-El trailer. My favorite part is when he said we would join Superman in the sun. That would be kind of hard to do if the ideal he is presenting us with is "impossible."

Also, thanks for backing up my point about Superman's approach to justice. Out of the millions of times Superman has taken down bad guys you mentioned two examples to the contrary. And one of those times, when he wasn't able to hand those criminals to the authorities (because those authorities were all dead), Superman ended up so overcome with guilt that he temporarily started losing his mind and exiled himself from Earth. Like I said 99.9% of the time we see a different approach from Superman.

It is no different then Jesus. He is the impossible example mankind is to strive for according to Christianity to continue the betterment of ourselves and society.

Also, you do realize how big murder is up on the list of things Superman's list is not to do right?

Also I think it's interesting you mention the end of The Dark Knight. One of the points I got from TDKR is that Batman and Gordon were wrong to do what they did at the end of TDK. Officer Blake makes that pretty clear. In the end you aren't better off deliberately misleading people for their own good.

It's one thing to mislead people to protect your loved ones. It's an entirely different thing to mislead people by giving them false hope. If Superman is just a "role" that Clark Kent is playing that is exactly what he's doing.

No it was the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean the right thing doesn't take a toll on the people involved. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is the right way. That it was the right thing to do didn't change Gordon's guilt. He was still forced to blame his friend, the man who saved his son's life.

Exactly! I don't believe you ever see a truer expression of who this man is than when he's saving someone's life. When he's wearing the costume doing great things, he's not pretending. He's just being himself.

But when he is wearing his glasses and saves somebody he is pretending?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Point 1- Home made. Exactly. Doesn't matter by which parent, it's from his home.

Point 2- The cape is a uniform in which he gets to be himself.

Why does it matter that it is home made? If Clark made his glasses would that change a thing? More importantly why does one need a uniform to be himself?

Also, pretty sure Clark is himself when he is at home in a t-shirt and jeans.

Point 3-Clark doesn't come up with the name Superman.

How is this at all relevant? Especially when he uses the name. He calls himself Superman all the time.

It's not a disguise, for the very basic reason in that it cannot function as a disguise because he's is not disguising his identity. He is showing it for the world to see. That is one of the most important things about Superman. He shows his face to everyone.

The entire suit is a disguise. How he styles his hair is a disguise. He doesn't even use his real name. When called to testify it isn't Clark Kent, Kansas native. It is Superman from parts unknown.

Is Iron Man's armour a disguise? Not it's a uniform.

Very much a disguise until he reveals his identity. Darth Vader needs his suit to live but it also mask his identity.

Clark Kent, on the other hand, wears glasses to hide his face, ill fitting clothes to distort the visage of his body, acts like a buffoon and only has four friends because he doesn't act like himself.

That sounds much more like a disguise now doesn't it?

A man can have more then one disguise.

He was called in to do that, because other people think he is perfect. The only one that Superman called himself was to announce he was going to disband the Justice League because he made a mistake.

Are you suggesting Clark doesn't understand what he stands for? That he is unaware of how people see the Superman persona?

 

[The Guard]

All of that would make perfect sense if Kal-el had grown up on Krypton and ended up on earth somehow as an adult.

Then Superman would be the real person, but perhaps he would pretend to be a normal earth man in order to learn about the world and about people on a smaller scale.

Then I could see that Clark Kent was absolutely an act, that became very important to him, and that he enjoys having as part of his life.

That makes logical, rational and psychological sense.

But he didn't.

He came to earth as a BABY.

He's spent his entire life with the identity Clark Kent, and the only thing that changes when he finds out he is from Krypton is that he knows why he is different, and why he can do the things he does.

It simply doesn't make psychological sense for a man to find out their true heritage and suddenly just stop being the person you were. You can't erase all your memories, all your thoughts, your entire personality up to then and decide 'Okay, i'm not Clark Kent anymore, i'm this new person, but i'm still going to dress up like the old me and have fun pretending to still be him sometimes.'

That's just illogical.

I completely accept that Metropolis Clark is a version of himself that includes fake characteristics, and that Superman is the persona where he can be more himself. I completely accept that, given a choice, he will always choose to be Superman over Metropolis Clark (though it would make him incredibly unhappy).

But that underneath the suit - that's still the guy who grew up on a farm in kansas, went to school, played games, watched movies, has favourite foods and music and books, has friends and people from his past.

And those things aren't Superman. Superman didn't grow up on a farm or go to school etc.

Those things are part of the Clark that exists underneath both disguises.

How anyone can ignore the sheer rationalism of that, is beyond me.

This.

The only reason Superman was ever the real person and Clark the disguise was that early comic book writers didn't understand basic psychology, and were less interested in the whole "Clark grew up human, was instilled by the Kents with morals that led him to become Superman".

I've honestly rarely heard the nature of Clark/Superman put better than "Clark Kent is who I am...Superman is what I can do." But it is more like "Superman is who I grew into" (which this film thankfully seems to understand, weaving both Jor-El and Pa Kent's teachings together, which I love). Being Superman becomes a large part of his "life's work", but it doesn't erase his need to have a normal life. People want to overcomplicate Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. It's complex...but it neededn't be complicated.

 

[UaalaDan]

This.

The only reason Superman was ever the real person and Clark the disguise was that early comic book writers didn't understand basic psychology, and were less interested in the whole "Clark grew up human, was instilled by the Kents with morals that led him to become Superman".

I've honestly rarely heard the nature of Clark/Superman put better than "Clark Kent is who I am...Superman is what I can do." But it is more like "Superman is who I grew into" (which this film thankfully seems to understand, weaving both Jor-El and Pa Kent's teachings together, which I love). Being Superman becomes a large part of his "life's work", but it doesn't erase his need to have a normal life. People want to overcomplicate Kal-El/Clark Kent/Superman. It's complex...but it neededn't be complicated.

Completely agree. I think a lot of people misunderstand the Dean Cain quote, you know? Isn't our actions, what we can do also part of who we are? In that show Clark still grew up to be Superman. Watch the episode "Whine, Whine, Whine" of 2nd season and what Superman tells the lawyer in the courtroom.

Clark was pleading to Lois in " Tempus Fugitive" for her to see beyond the celebrity, the costume and the lies, which she learned how to as they grew closer with each other. Then the barriers between Clark and Superman started to disappear.

It seems to me that a lot of old school/Chris Reeve Superman fans went into that show with a lot of prejudice. Yeah, the special effects weren't that good, yeah it lacked money to really represent Superman but, to me, one thing they did EXTREMELY WELL is that it defined their relationship and nobody did better than them, imo. It was a very realistic, mature way of dealing with their lives and I hope this movie takes some things from its best moments.

Plus it had a Lois we fell in love with not a chain smoker like Margot Kidder. Hopefully Amy Adams is going to be at least half as good as Teri Hatcher.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

All of that would make perfect sense if Kal-el had grown up on Krypton and ended up on earth somehow as an adult.

Then Superman would be the real person, but perhaps he would pretend to be a normal earth man in order to learn about the world and about people on a smaller scale.

Then I could see that Clark Kent was absolutely an act, that became very important to him, and that he enjoys having as part of his life.

That makes logical, rational and psychological sense.

But he didn't.

He came to earth as a BABY.

He's spent his entire life with the identity Clark Kent, and the only thing that changes when he finds out he is from Krypton is that he knows why he is different, and why he can do the things he does.

It simply doesn't make psychological sense for a man to find out their true heritage and suddenly just stop being the person you were. You can't erase all your memories, all your thoughts, your entire personality up to then and decide 'Okay, i'm not Clark Kent anymore, i'm this new person, but i'm still going to dress up like the old me and have fun pretending to still be him sometimes.'

That's just illogical.

I completely accept that Metropolis Clark is a version of himself that includes fake characteristics, and that Superman is the persona where he can be more himself. I completely accept that, given a choice, he will always choose to be Superman over Metropolis Clark (though it would make him incredibly unhappy).

But that underneath the suit - that's still the guy who grew up on a farm in kansas, went to school, played games, watched movies, has favourite foods and music and books, has friends and people from his past.

And those things aren't Superman. Superman didn't grow up on a farm or go to school etc.

Those things are part of the Clark that exists underneath both disguises.

How anyone can ignore the sheer rationalism of that, is beyond me.

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.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

This.

The only reason Superman was ever the real person and Clark the disguise was that early comic book writers didn't understand basic psychology, and were less interested in the whole "Clark grew up human, was instilled by the Kents with morals that led him to become Superman".

The idea comes from Siegel and Shuster's wish fulfillment and became the most recognizable icon of comic books.

What you and some johnny-come-lately's think they have to turn Superman into just because it's more "realistic" is not important.

And biopsychological studies usually show that nature trumps nurture every time.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Why does it matter that it is home made?

Because one of his mothers made it for him, they are his clothes. They aren't a disguise, they were made specifically for the man who would become Superman. Not the man who would act like a dork.

If Clark made his glasses would that change a thing?

Yes. If he wore a mask as Superman.

More importantly why does one need a uniform to be himself?

He doesn't. But a film without Lois Lane, Jimmy, Perry, the Kents would be a bit more dull, if it were on Earth, at least. He needs to be able to disguise himself as the Metropolis Clark Kent to protect people, for example, his parents, or have mundane interactions. Here's a real world example that I hate that I know:

Justin Timberlake said on a chat show that if he wants to go out he wears a hat, sunglasses and a scarf at night, books a ticket under a fake name and goes to the movies.

He doesn't need to do that to go to watch a film. But he does it to save himself from hassle. It doesn't mean that other person is real. It's an act just like Superman pretends to be a dork at the Daily Planet.

Also, pretty sure Clark is himself when he is at home in a t-shirt and jeans.

He is, but he's not acting like Clark Kent there though is he? He's not wearing the glasses, he's not wearing the ill fitting clothes, he's not acting differently. He's acting like himself.

Clark at home=Superman

How is this at all relevant? Especially when he uses the name. He calls himself Superman all the time.

This is an origin story. You said he goes around saying he is Superman. He doesn't usually come up with that name. It can usually be attributed to Lois Lane or the Kents.

The entire suit is a disguise. How he styles his hair is a disguise.

He's not concealing his identity. That's the point. It's Superman that conceals he is the buffoon working in the Daily Planet. That's why it is Superman that rips off the Clark Kent disguise and not the other way around.

He doesn't even use his real name. When called to testify it isn't Clark Kent, Kansas native. It is Superman from parts unknown.

That is because Superman was not born Clark Kent. He was born Kal-El. Clark stopped existing and became a façade when he chose to become Superman. Clark Kent became a work of fiction, a façade to disguise him from his work as Superman. If it weren't a façade he wouldn't need to mask his face, body and mannerisms.

Very much a disguise until he reveals his identity.

When did Tony say he needs to disguise his identity? He tells his friends pretty much immediately, then the rest of the world. He was never worried about creating an alter ego.

Darth Vader needs his suit to live but it also mask his identity.

Nothing in the films would suggest Darth Vader is disguising his identity.

A man can have more then one disguise.

They can. Batman has numerous.

Superman doesn't.

Are you suggesting Clark doesn't understand what he stands for? That he is unaware of how people see the Superman persona?

I am saying that Superman always highlights his own flaws. He never leads people to believe he is perfect.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I wouldn't doubt that spending time with friends would be important for him but I don't think it's what defines him. To me, Superman will always be defined by his compassion for people in need.

I think it's exciting to meet someone who has a real passion for something. A great doctor has a passion for making advances in the medical field. A great teacher has a passion for educating children. Superman has a passion for making other people's lives better.

The way I view the character, everything he does will be driven by the goal of helping people. Through his writing Clark Kent can help people in a way that Superman can't. I think that's where a part of the importance of Clark Kent comes from. But as highly as a value that, I still think the clearest picture of who he is found when you see him in action as Superman.

But why does that have to be decided?

Why can't people just be happy saying 'He is Clark Kent and Superman'?
Why does there have to be this ridiculous quest to argue one is more important than the other? Why can't they just both be important?

I mean, yes, the character trait of wanting to help others is the defining aspect of the man behind the suit. I completely agree with that.

But it's not ALL that he is.

He's a whole person, with many different aspects!

Superman is not a whole person. Part of that persona is a lie. Just like Metropolis Clark Kent.

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.

The idea comes from Siegel and Shuster's wish fulfillment and became the most recognizable icon of comic books.

What you and some johnny-come-lately's think they have to turn Superman into just because it's more "realistic" is not important.

And biopsychological studies usually show that nature trumps nurture every time.

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

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.'

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?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

They haven't.

It was tried once after Crisis On Infinite Earths to make Clark Kent essentially Superman without the powers. Superman was an invention but Clark didn't change anything about himself. It lasted a relatively long while before people started to ignore it, but was gotten rid of in four subsequent Superman origins (Superman: Birthright, Superman: Secret Origin, Superman: Earth One and Action Comcs Vol. 2).

 

[The Guard]

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

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

Superman has never been shown not to understand humans.

For a long time he actually remembered Krypton. And it's how the character is supposed to be.

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.

The idea comes from Siegel and Shuster's wish fulfillment and became the most recognizable icon of comic books.

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.

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

What you and some johnny-come-lately's think they have to turn Superman into just because it's more "realistic" is not important.

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.

And biopsychological studies usually show that nature trumps nurture every time.

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.

More importantly why does one need a uniform to be himself?

In Superman’s case its because he’s a symbol. What he can be is an example, a symbol, and an inspiration.[/quote]

He needs that suit to be a symbol to the world.

He's not concealing his identity. That's the point. It's Superman that conceals he is the buffoon working in the Daily Planet. That's why it is Superman that rips off the Clark Kent disguise and not the other way around.

People saying ”Its Superman who conceals himself beneath the facade of a buffoon” are just missing the point. It’s not just Superman hiding in the actions of that "buffoon"…it’s CLARK, hiding what he can do as Superman from the world.

That is because Superman was not born Clark Kent. He was born Kal-El. Clark stopped existing and became a façade when he chose to become Superman. Clark Kent became a work of fiction, a façade to disguise him from his work as Superman. If it weren't a façade he wouldn't need to mask his face, body and mannerisms.

That’s just silly and illogical. You don’’t just stop being who you always were because you develop a new outlook on life or a new motivation.

Clark never just stopped existing and became a façade in modern Superman stories...Clark ADDED something to his normal self to prevent people from suspecting he was Superman.

But why does that have to be decided?

Why can't people just be happy saying 'He is Clark Kent and Superman'?

Why does there have to be this ridiculous quest to argue one is more important than the other? Why can't they just both be important?

I mean, yes, the character trait of wanting to help others is the defining aspect of the man behind the suit. I completely agree with that.

But it's not ALL that he is.

He's a whole person, with many different aspects!

Superman is not a whole person. Part of that persona is a lie. Just like Metropolis Clark Kent.

Exactly.

I have no idea why so many fans don't embrace Superman as having many different aspects and sides. I suspect its because most people, including fanboys, insist on viewing things in a black and white manner. There must be one truth to something. Which is ridiculous when you follow mythologies that tend to be steeped in duality.

 

[Wheels]

My stance is clear, I am in line with the creator's intentions and I find that way more interesting.

Good for you. I don't expect to change your mind on the subject. The universe and even the character himself were given elements that allow us to relate to the books. Superman is not something like Lord of the Rings, where it is far easier for the reader to detach themselves from the stories.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

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.

Actually, in humans, that's not entirely true.

That’s just silly and illogical. You don’’t just stop being who you always were because you develop a new outlook on life or a new motivation.

Clark never just stopped existing and became a façade in modern Superman stories...Clark ADDED something to his normal self to prevent people from suspecting he was Superman.

Yeah, he added a facade. He didn't become someone new.

 

[Wheels]

But Clark Kent isn't completely a facade, because their are real elements in the persona,

 

[true316]

It is no different then Jesus. He is the impossible example mankind is to strive for according to Christianity to continue the betterment of ourselves and society.

Also, you do realize how big murder is up on the list of things Superman's list is not to do right?



No it was the right thing to do, but that doesn't mean the right thing doesn't take a toll on the people involved. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is the right way. That it was the right thing to do didn't change Gordon's guilt. He was still forced to blame his friend, the man who saved his son's life.



But when he is wearing his glasses and saves somebody he is pretending?

Actually, Superman is very different from Jesus. In the New Testament Jesus doesn't say he came to be an impossible example for the betterment of society. If you want to reference some specific verses to back up your point be my guest. Jesus is presented as perfect and blameless in the Bible in contrast to Superman. There's no reason to have Superman presented as perfect in any of his stories. For Jesus there was a point. He came to die for the sins of mankind. If his death was to mean anything he would have to be perfect. He couldn't die for other people's sins if he had sins of his own. So there's a point to the perfection of Jesus. A much different situation than with Superman.

And yes, I realize how highly Superman values life. What's your point? I never tried to justify any of Superman's action or inaction as correct. You're the one who thinks he's perfect.

We're getting off track if we are talking too much about TDKR. But I will say for a choice you say was correct, it sure blew up in their faces when Bane showed up, pulled the curtain back on the lie, and broke everyone out that had been incarcerated because of the false story.

 

[true316]

But why does that have to be decided?

Why can't people just be happy saying 'He is Clark Kent and Superman'?
Why does there have to be this ridiculous quest to argue one is more important than the other? Why can't they just both be important?

I mean, yes, the character trait of wanting to help others is the defining aspect of the man behind the suit. I completely agree with that.

But it's not ALL that he is.

He's a whole person, with many different aspects!

Superman is not a whole person. Part of that persona is a lie. Just like Metropolis Clark Kent.

You actually answered your own question at the end. I'm just not comfortable with any part of the Superman persona being a lie. 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. That's an purely an opinion but that's how I feel.

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.

 

[Micromind]

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.