Superman's character growth

[project13]

One of the main complaints about Superman is that he's so perfect and too good to be true. But what if he didn't start out as the Big Blue Boy Scout? One of the great things about "Smallville" is that it shows Clark Kent transitition from unsure-of-himself Kansas farmboy into a protector of Metropolis and a "super-savior" (ala the Blur). I'm not saying that we should do a flashback of Clark in Smallville learning how to be something more, I'm just suggesting is that when it comes to character development, how does a character go from point A to point B. In other words:

How should Superman grow as a character in the reboot?

 

[Rust]

Well, if it's a stand-alone movie and he's already established, then he probably wont grow much.

That being said, I'd still like to see him portrayed as a "questioning" boy-scout. Not questioning him self, but the human race and his part in the world. Not the emo-Supes of SR, but the Ross-version. He'll save humans, but he'll never be able to save humanity from itself.

 

[Paul-el]

There's always room for character growth -- even for an established Superman. Why? Because we're always learning new things about ourselves and the way the world works. There's surely some way an established Superman could come up against a challenge that would require him to change in some way.

 

[project13]

But what if Superman hasn't been established yet in the reboot? What kind of character growth would he go through?

I'm talking about a learning curve for Supes that he has to go through in order to be a true blue hero.

 

[BestGirl]

He'll fail at some point so that he'll realize that he's not all-powerful and can't save everyone.

 

[Paul-el]

True, but it needs to be deeper than that because then you're only talking about exterior goals. A good way to go about figuring out character growth is defining the hero's inner need -- Superman has a ___________ inner need that he needs to fulfill in order to save the day (which is his exterior goal). It could be something that Jor-El stresses to him during his mentoring, that Jonathan Kent also echoed in some way when Clark was growing up.

The tough part would be making it relate to Clark's character arc.

 

[HboyBowen]

Well the most common misrepresentation of Superman(also in the the spin-off smallville) is Superman was born Superman and always was Superman and SUPERMAN's alterego is Clark Kent. Its not Clark Kent's alterego is Superman. The alter ego Clark Kent was created given to him. He didn't create it.

That said he is merely a alien wanting to be human.An the growth would be him longing to have a normal life but he is the embodiment of "with great power comes great responsibility" and no matter how much he would like to fully submerge himself as Clark Kent that is not who he really is or born to be. An that is something he should have to discover that is he was never meant to be Clark Kent. An that isn't who he is, but only in the eyes of the people who know Clark Kent is he Clark Kent. To himself and to the universe and his great adversaries he is the last Krytonian and to Earth he is its protector.

 

[Gianakin_]

I say do what Smallville tried to do, but partially failed due to the heavy soap-opera subplots and writing: A struggle between his Kryptonian heritage and human raising. Those 2 don't have to be vastly different, but could clash at some key points.

STM and SII (The Donner Cut) merely touched upon that, but it is one of the most interesting aspects of Superman to me and I'd love to see it on screen done properly.

Generally, just use as much Krypton as you can. That planet and their way of life can provide a screenplay with tons of possibilities.

 

[Keyser Soze]

I for one am tired of the "Superman is the real person and Clark Kent is the disguise" buzz phrase that people like to throw around. I don't think that's the case at all. Clark Kent is the real person. His Kryptonian heritage may be what makes him "Super", but he became the "Man" he is thanks to his honest upbringing by Ma and Pa Kent. He really is a naive, awkward, but inherently decent and good-natured farm boy, who has to project this image of being a perfect, godlike figure as Superman.

The power of Superman is that it's his humanity that makes him great. He embodies all our hopes and aspirations that we're capable of great things. At his purest, Superman is about that childlike fantasy that we can toss aside our glasses and fly through the air. He's us. Lex Luthor represents everything that is small and petty about humanity, and Superman represents the very best qualities in us.

 

[Gianakin_]

It's like Dean Cain's Clark said in L&C: Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do.

However, I think Superman has 3 personas:
1.The Smallville Clark.
2.The Metropolis/DP Clark.
3.Superman/Kal-El.

Some writers like to mix 1 and 2, especially in the post-crisis era. I don't know what direction this movie will follow, but I'm open to everything.

 

[SuperFerret]

One of the main complaints about Superman is that he's so perfect and too good to be true. But what if he didn't start out as the Big Blue Boy Scout? One of the great things about "Smallville" is that it shows Clark Kent transitition from unsure-of-himself Kansas farmboy into a protector of Metropolis and a "super-savior" (ala the Blur). I'm not saying that we should do a flashback of Clark in Smallville learning how to be something more, I'm just suggesting is that when it comes to character development, how does a character go from point A to point B. In other words:

How should Superman grow as a character in the reboot?

One of the main misconceptions about Superman is that he's so perfect and too good to be true.

Write him the way he has been for the past few years and that won't be a problem. Superman is both the country boy trying to handle being a god and the god trying to be human.

 

[The Sage]

I for one am tired of the "Superman is the real person and Clark Kent is the disguise" buzz phrase that people like to throw around. I don't think that's the case at all. Clark Kent is the real person. His Kryptonian heritage may be what makes him "Super", but he became the "Man" he is thanks to his honest upbringing by Ma and Pa Kent. He really is a naive, awkward, but inherently decent and good-natured farm boy, who has to project this image of being a perfect, godlike figure as Superman.

The power of Superman is that it's his humanity that makes him great. He embodies all our hopes and aspirations that we're capable of great things. At his purest, Superman is about that childlike fantasy that we can toss aside our glasses and fly through the air. He's us. Lex Luthor represents everything that is small and petty about humanity, and Superman represents the very best qualities in us.

I don't agree completely. The Kryptonian heritage is just as important as the human upbringing and both equally make him who he is for multiple reasons. There's nothing wrong with Superman being the real person, as this is fiction and you can have a character as virtuous as Superman as being the main personality. But that discussion's been raging on in another thread.

I'd rather go with the medium which both sides can agree on, as Gianakin said, in a way.

The REAL Clark Kent/Kal-El, real person
Mild-mannered Clark Kent - more of a persona as he dons a pair of glasses, different hairstyle perhaps different body posture and some mannerisms at times that aren't true to his own.
Superman - The REAL Clark Kent/Kal-El, but more confident and authoritative.

To me, Superman and the REAL Clark Kent/Kal-El aren't that far from each other, but the distinction works best for some people, and it parallels the three personas of Bruce Wayne which makes sense since these are the two heroes with that level of complexity. And I don't agree with the naive farmboy thing. Let him be confident in what he does and enjoy it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

You know, it has only just occurred to me having this discussion how close Superman: The Movie was thematically to Richard Donner's The Omen, at first glance a radically different film. Both play with ideas of "nature VS nurture" on a grand scale.

 

[The Sage]

You know, it has only just occurred to me having this discussion how close Superman: The Movie was thematically to Richard Donner's The Omen, at first glance a radically different film. Both play with ideas of "nature VS nurture" on a grand scale.

Never saw The Omen. Hope that isn't a problem...

 

[project13]

Uh..you guys seem to be WAY off-topic.

This thread isn't supposed to be about who is the real person, it's supposed to be about character development like Jim Kirk in Star Trek 2k9, James Bond in "Casino Royale" and Bruce Wayne in "Batman Begins".

I agree they should do it like Smallville did with their version of Clark Kent, just without the soap opera crap.

 

[The Guard]

I'd like to see Superman start off a darker, more violent type, as he was originally, and through the franchise, grow into the Superman we know with some struggles in his moral character along the way, ultimately becoming the Superman we need, not just the one we know.

 

[Rust]

Well, Clark is his human side and Superman is the superior alien in him, but still a very humanized alien.

 

[afan]

Please...no "Smallville" character elements at all.....it's grown into an ElseWorld tale, that features a tormented Clark Kent who could never ever be the quintesential Superman.

That being said the entire character development of Clark occurs in an archetypically Norman Rockwell-like Smallville under the guidance of the Kent's. They and the bucolic surroundings of Smallville are, to his character strength, what the yellow sun is to his physical prowess. When Clark arrives in Metropolis and begins his career he is the Man of Steel in character and body. This is not to say he cannot learn life's "lessons", but his character core is firmly in place.

 

[Brother Jack]

I'd like to see Superman start off a darker, more violent type, as he was originally, and through the franchise, grow into the Superman we know with some struggles in his moral character along the way, ultimately becoming the Superman we need, not just the one we know.

I'd call that a good template to follow.

I've always kind of liked the aloof, nearly god-like Superman, but that kind of characterization only really works when he's a supporting character (think Dark Knight Returns). If you're going to do that for his story, you have to have the character grow into it.

 

[Timstuff]

IMO one of the best episodes of Superman: The Animated Series was "The Late Mr. Kent." You really got a sense that "Kal El" was just as much Clark Kent as he was Superman, and it really put an emphasis on how Clark Kent was not simply just a disguise for Superman. Clark Kent is his life, and he still wants to do good as Clark Kent, the journalist, even though he can also do incredible things as Superman.

 

[Panthro]

IMO one of the best episodes of Superman: The Animated Series was "The Late Mr. Kent." You really got a sense that "Kal El" was just as much Clark Kent as he was Superman, and it really put an emphasis on how Clark Kent was not simply just a disguise for Superman. Clark Kent is his life, and he still wants to do good as Clark Kent, the journalist, even though he can also do incredible things as Superman.

Agreed.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

The apparent lack of character that surrounds Superman is a misconception from those who are too clueless to adequately pour piss from a boot. There is plenty of character growth to accomplish. The specific versions of Superman that everyone talks about are ALL part of his make-up. It's just separate sides that he shows for the necessary occasion. Each one represents aspects of his personality that are inherent regardless of whether the cape is on or not.

The film should show some sort of character progression. He needs to learn something by the end of the film. That's a gimme. Otherwise it'll be something Michael Bay will like.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Superman is a shower, not a grower. Oh yeah baby!

 

[Kurosawa]

I for one am tired of the "Superman is the real person and Clark Kent is the disguise" buzz phrase that people like to throw around. I don't think that's the case at all. Clark Kent is the real person. His Kryptonian heritage may be what makes him "Super", but he became the "Man" he is thanks to his honest upbringing by Ma and Pa Kent. He really is a naive, awkward, but inherently decent and good-natured farm boy, who has to project this image of being a perfect, godlike figure as Superman.

The power of Superman is that it's his humanity that makes him great. He embodies all our hopes and aspirations that we're capable of great things. At his purest, Superman is about that childlike fantasy that we can toss aside our glasses and fly through the air. He's us. Lex Luthor represents everything that is small and petty about humanity, and Superman represents the very best qualities in us.

I could bring out the quotes from Superman's own creator and many of his best writers from the time when the character was successful and relevant, but why bother?

The character you describe is John Byrne's Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid, not Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster's creation.

 

[maenalus]

Please...no "Smallville" character elements at all.....it's grown into an ElseWorld tale, that features a tormented Clark Kent who could never ever be the quintesential Superman.

That being said the entire character development of Clark occurs in an archetypically Norman Rockwell-like Smallville under the guidance of the Kent's. They and the bucolic surroundings of Smallville are, to his character strength, what the yellow sun is to his physical prowess. When Clark arrives in Metropolis and begins his career he is the Man of Steel in character and body. This is not to say he cannot learn life's "lessons", but his character core is firmly in place.

Agreed. Clark Kent doesn't have a tortured life, and no one is more comfortable and happy in his own skin, and no one has more to be grateful for than Superman. When you force angst on a character who has no justifiable reason to be anguished, it doesn't show some benign "character development", but rather a spoiled, ungrateful, whining self-pity.

And having him hung up on "questioning humanity" is a big bore that makes him look like a fool. He's struggling to be naive? What is he questioning? That there are, and always will be evil and stupid people causing trouble, that even the best make mistakes, and bad things happen to innocent people through no fault of their own? Those aren't questions, those are basic facts of life. Children are supposed to understand that.