The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[Nightwing1983]

No, Batman retains his popularity and importance because DC did not take him completely away from his original core concept. He is still based on vengeance, he is still a brilliant detective and a fearsome, intimidating creature of the night.

It's been said that Batman is not motivated by vengeance; but by the will to prevent the tragedy visited upon him to happen to others.

Superman's original core was that he was the reality, Clark the construct, and that he was an independent adult with no family, the last survivor of a utopian planet with great powers.

While Clark's nerdy persona was a construct and that's been altered, I don't think the characterization ran so deep that Superman was "the reality," either.

So with Batman they kept everything. With Superman they kept the powers and the last survivor side

And the costume, and Clark's glasses, and the rogues gallery, and...

(which wasn't vital anyway or all the other Kryptonians they brought in would have hurt Superman's popularity, which they didn't),

This is called begging the question. You're trying to prove that a certain change ran so deep that it hurt his popularity. You acknowledge another change that apparently didn't hurt his popularity because it didn't run as deep. However, you still haven't proven that this change really ran that deep or--for that matter--that he's not popular enough anyway.

and even that they changed by making Krypton a decrepit cold planet that deserved to die.

While "deserved to die," is a bit harsh, I do agree that the Man of Steel version of Krypton sucked. The Superman: the Movie version wasn't much better.

And YES Superman SHOULD think of himself as Superman first and Clark as a disguise. Why? Because the guy that created him meant for it to be that way.

Yes, that was your assertion. I'm waiting for the details.

Because it was that way for 50 YEARS and because when it was that way the series was more successful.

Actually, it was 48 years, minus the ten years where, again, Clark was a construct, but the characterization wasn't so deep that it meant anything to anyone.

Furthermore, where's your evidence that the series was more successful between 1938-1986 than it was from 1987 to 2006 (as he's once again been rebooted)? If you're going by aggregate, monthly sales, you still have to factor in competition, inflation, the DC implosion, big events like Man of Steel #1 and Superman (vol 2) #75.

And because it's more interesting as a concept.

This is your opinion. Now you can back it up all you want, but it's a detour from trying to demonstrate that among most people (or whatever) it's why he's not successful.

Every other character is the same person in and out of costume. Superman has a true dual identity. You don't see great directors having their characters discuss Peter Parker and Spider-Man in their films.

Well, I could point out that Peter Parker is often timid until he puts on the Spider-Man costume, then he starts acting like a stand-up comedian; but I'm really not sure what you're referring to exactly.

Scholars don't write papers or books about the Batman/Bruce Wayne duality, since Bruce is clearly nothing but a front.

Um... first, I'm sure you could find a paper or a book about the Batman/Bruce Wayne duality, but also, isn't Bruce being nothing but a front the same thing as Clark being a front?

As for Batman's villains helping his sales, there is no doubt that they do, but there is also little doubt that one area they HAVE improved in the Superman comics Post-Crisis is the quality of the villains.

Eh. Not especially. I mean, there've been some good ones, but also some lame ones, and really, the post-Crisis Brainiac wasn't an improvement over what he became in 1983. That's one of the changes that sucked the most IMHO.

What were we talking about again?

Where they messed up with Superman is this: they kept Superman a demigod, but a very flawed one who lacked confidence and was sneered at by his peers, and THEN they made Clark almost as perfect as Superman but with a perfect home life and a perfect professional life and next to no conflict. There's simply nothing there to latch on to at all.

And they're bringing him back to the Superman = "real"/Clark Kent = "disguise" and sales are low. So low. Of course, that's not fair since Superman is no longer in Superman.

Let's just say I seem to remember one that came out in, oh, the autum of 1992 and it did all right.

I don't realistically expect anyone to agree with me on these matters, however. All I'm really doing is saying my piece. I know that today's fans could honestly care less about guys like Siegel or Kirby or Bill Finger...to them they just did comics ages ago that are very lame and out of date now. It is what it is, I guess.

And that was downright manipulative. Insulting, in fact. I care very much about Siegel.

I just don't remember him complaining.

 

[Kurosawa]

It's been said that Batman is not motivated by vengeance; but by the will to prevent the tragedy visited upon him to happen to others.



While Clark's nerdy persona was a construct and that's been altered, I don't think the characterization ran so deep that Superman was "the reality," either.



And the costume, and Clark's glasses, and the rogues gallery, and...



This is called begging the question. You're trying to prove that a certain change ran so deep that it hurt his popularity. You acknowledge another change that apparently didn't hurt his popularity because it didn't run as deep. However, you still haven't proven that this change really ran that deep or--for that matter--that he's not popular enough anyway.



While "deserved to die," is a bit harsh, I do agree that the Man of Steel version of Krypton sucked. The Superman: the Movie version wasn't much better.




Yes, that was your assertion. I'm waiting for the details.




Actually, it was 48 years, minus the ten years where, again, Clark was a construct, but the characterization wasn't so deep that it meant anything to anyone.

Furthermore, where's your evidence that the series was more successful between 1938-1986 than it was from 1987 to 2006 (as he's once again been rebooted)? If you're going by aggregate, monthly sales, you still have to factor in competition, inflation, the DC implosion, big events like Man of Steel #1 and Superman (vol 2) #75.



This is your opinion. Now you can back it up all you want, but it's a detour from trying to demonstrate that among most people (or whatever) it's why he's not successful.



Well, I could point out that Peter Parker is often timid until he puts on the Spider-Man costume, then he starts acting like a stand-up comedian; but I'm really not sure what you're referring to exactly.



Um... first, I'm sure you could find a paper or a book about the Batman/Bruce Wayne duality, but also, isn't Bruce being nothing but a front the same thing as Clark being a front?



Eh. Not especially. I mean, there've been some good ones, but also some lame ones, and really, the post-Crisis Brainiac wasn't an improvement over what he became in 1983. That's one of the changes that sucked the most IMHO.

What were we talking about again?



And they're bringing him back to the Superman = "real"/Clark Kent = "disguise" and sales are low. So low. Of course, that's not fair since Superman is no longer in Superman.

Let's just say I seem to remember one that came out in, oh, the autum of 1992 and it did all right.



And that was downright manipulative. Insulting, in fact. I care very much about Siegel.

I just don't remember him complaining.

Direct quotes about Superman's creation and the Superman/Clark Kent relationship from Siegel:

The story would begin with you as a child on far-off planet Krypton. Like the others of that world, you had super-powers. (In revised versions done many years after the comic strip was first published, this facet was altered.) The child's scientist-father was mocked and denounced by the Science Council. They did not believe his claim that Krypton would soon explode from internal stresses. Convinced that his prediction was valid, the boy's father had been constructing a model rocket ship. As the planet began to perish, the baby's parents knew its end was close. There was not space enough for three people in the small model craft. They put the baby into it. The mother chose to remain on the doomed planet with the man she loved, and die with him. Tearfully, hoping that their baby boy would survive, they launched the craft toward the planet Earth. Shortly, Krypton exploded and its millions of inhabitants were destroyed.

On Earth, the super-tyke was found and adopted by a couple. They loved him and taught him to conceal his super-secret from the world. They told him that someday he must use his incredible abilities to aid those less gifted than he. And he would fight for justice, too!

The boy would grow up to become the colorfully costumed super-powered Superman!

Excitedly, I got out of bed and wrote that down. Yawning, I went back to bed and fell asleep.

I awoke a little later. More ideas came to me. This Superman would lead a double-life. As headline-hunting newspaper reporter Clark Kent, he would hide behind a false front of pretended timidity, so that no one would suspect that he was secretly the crusading, all-powerful Superman. As a furthering disguise, meek, mild Clark Kent would wear eyeglasses, which would give a somewhat intellectual, inhibited appearance.

For romantic interest (romance makes the world go 'round, and it could add zest to the "SUPERMAN" comic strip), I would add a very gutsy and extremely beautiful girl reporter, Lois Lane, into the strip's cast of characters. Lois would scorn klutzy Clark. She would have a crush on Superman, totally unaware that Clark and Superman were one-and-the-same person!

This time I almost fell out of bed in my haste to get it all down in script form on paper. Much later, I returned to bed, one happy guy. I felt I had come up with sure-fire ingredients for a smash-hit comic strip.

Supie, you know and I know that much of that premise came out of my own personal frustrations. I wore spectacles and was a high school boy who wrote for the school newspaper. Introverted, my thoughts kept dwelling on science-fiction, thriller pulp magazines and the movies.

There were some lovely high school girls who I admired from afar. They were not the least bit interested in me. I was not Clark (Kent) Gable. I was just another face in the crowded, busy high school corridors.

Those attractive schoolgirls in the classes and corridors didn't care that I existed. But!! If I were to wear a colorful, skintight costume! If I could run faster than a train, lift great weights easily, and leap over skyscrapers in a single bound! Then they would notice me!

Now I'm sure we're going to disagree for the most part, but that is where Siegel was coming from when he created Superman and in my opinion, they have strayed too far from it. And as far as Siegel complaining..well, he complained enough that him, his partner and their families have been suing DC/WB on and off since the late 40's.

I agree with Maggin on Clark:

Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."
Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently.

 

[Mr. Earle]

And that's why Batman is #1 and Supes has become an irrelevant joke. Because the core of the character has been maintained. The core of Superman was twisted around completely when they got rid of Clark as the disguise and Superman as the reality.

Did you ever consider that multiple characters exist to serve a different purpose? Not everything has to be grimdark and miserable.

Batman: Detective, grimdark, street level
Spiderman: College life and problems, a kid trying to figure out life, etc
Ironman: Technology
Thor: Mythology, magic
Superman: Lots of powers, happier, lighter, more optimistic.

Besides, has Batman always sold so well? NO.
If something is to blame for Superman's lower sales, its the general writing and story telling. They keep rehashing it and telling the same stories again and again and again. The origin, Lex, supergirl's arrival, etc.
Batman's story is ongoing. He gets new Robins, some die, his back gets broken, he dies, he comes back, he fights new villains, etc. Superman's story is finished and they keep retelling it in new ways instead of going forward. I havent read the current New Krypton arc but hell, its sounds innovative and fresh. BTW he's got an adopted son of his own. Its all a step in the right direction.

I guess Kurosawa never read "World of Krypton". Superman clearly feels the loss of his real parents and Jor-el`s sacrifice to save him. He even cries. One more example that Kurosawa don`t know a thing he`s talking about.

I know quite a few adopted kids and i know that it was a huge shock to them when they found out. Now imagine not only being adopted, but being adopted by another species, having strange powers, and being afraid that people will be disgusted by you, and the goverment will experiment on you. I think Clark has a big enough luggage as it is.

I don't think your view on this necessarily reflects real life. I don't know if you read my post awhile back about my friend who's father passed away. Anytime I spent time with her mom years later, the last thing I would describe the experience as, was "sunk in sorrow." She's a wonderfully kind woman who continues to work, do charity stuff, visit her daughter and son-in-law, and spend time with her friends. Is there real pain that she's had to face. Absolutely. But she's faced this hardship with grace and strength and I think Martha Kent would do the same.

That's one thing. But Martha is left all alone to spend the few remaining years of her life in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Superman's original core was that he was the reality, Clark the construct, and that he was an independent adult with no family, the last survivor of a utopian planet with great powers, fighting for the oppressed and less fortunate.

Superman was always about a guy with great powers doing great things, in lighter stories (lighter than Batman i mean).

And YES Superman SHOULD think of himself as Superman first and Clark as a disguise. Why? Because the guy that created him meant for it to be that way.

I couldnt give a **** about the details of Superman's core, as long as he's become better through the years. And judging by the fact that most fans in other forums love Superman as he is now, i think you should respect what other people like and accept change.

Superman hasnt had a heir like the Flash, or Robin, or Green Lantern had, so while the heirs of those characters progressed and evolved the basic idea, Superman was getting stuck there. Even batman progressed and incorporated new ideas.
You think that Superman is so special because Clark is the disguise? I think he's special because he is DCU's Jesus, or DCU's Captain America. The guy who will catch you rob a store and just by looking at you make you will make you feel sorry. Batman is fear, Superman is Jesus.

And to be honest, Clark is still the disguise. He tilts his back, wears bigger clothes, wears glasses when he doesnt need them and throws his hair on his face to cover it. Its still the disguise but in an external way. Clark still keeps his dignity and acts like the good guy he is supposed to be. Why would anyone care about the bozo Clark of the olden days? Why would anyone want to act like that when Clark achieves nothing that way?

Can he get a woman that way? NO.
Can he influence the world with his journalism when he's a joke? NO.
Can he influence his coworkers at the Planet? NO. They dont even give a **** about him.
Can he lead a happy life as a respected person? NO.

Why wouldnt Clark be a good journalist or stand up for what's good as Clark? Why wouldnt he try to have a happy life by being a good guy? No one suggested he acted like a champ or a badass.

And one more thing. The original Clark was too cold, Byrne's Clark was too hot, perhaps Johns will write a Clark in room temperature using the best parts of both worlds.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You don't see great directors having their characters discuss Peter Parker and Spider-Man in their films. Scholars don't write papers or books about the Batman/Bruce Wayne duality, since Bruce is clearly nothing but a front.

That's probably because Superman is the most famous and beloved character in comics and the one who started it all. Again you re making assumptions with wrong clues. Like how you assume that Superman's sales dropped because of those changes or that Batman sells so well because he's true to the core.

Currently, the comics true to Batman's core are "Batman" and "Streets of Gotham". And yet B&R that has barely anything to do with the core is the one that sells like crazy. Batman fights siamese triplets, fat women who use their purse as a weapon, Darkseid, Bruce's evil clone, and a butcher who wears a pig mask and gave Robin a sick lapdance.

And people like it because they like change, they got sick of grimdark, and because **** the core when the new thing is good.

Also, Bruce has 3 personalities.
1) His real self which he shows to the people who know his secret, like Alfred or Robin. The brilliant, focused and rather dark detective/strategist/scientist.
2) Batman. He acts much more macho and dark, he speaks very little and he acts like an angry beast.
3) Bruce Wayne businessman philanthropist. Good guy, playboy, naive, aloof, etc.

Even if people can't identify with Superman, they can identify with Clark because he is us.

I can identify with "Lois and Clark" or Smallville Clark, but in all my life i've never encountered a guy like Reeve's Clark.

But if Clark is the true person, and Superman the act...then there is nothing to identify at all.

In my previous post i explain that Clark is still the disguise. His true self is the one we see with his parents or when he's alone with his wife. When he doesnt hide his powers or crouch or wear glasses. Maybe that's the same person as Superman or maybe Superman acts a bit more macho. But see? Clark is still the disguise.

Superman is this: they kept Superman a demigod, but a very flawed one who lacked confidence and was sneered at by his peers

Dude, you read Byrne and stopped there. Read the current comics. Its like 20 years from then and things have changed. When Superman walks into a room, everybody shuts up. He is Superman.

And i'd like to address that opinion of yours that he's Batman's *****. Bad writers always job one character to another. Look how they treated Ironman in Civil War. They made him evil like Osborn and when CW was over, every hero in Marvel beat him up so that justice would supposedly be served. Bad writers will always job SM to BM or BM to SM.

But if you want to read a spot on relationship between the two, read Superman/Batman Annual #2, SM-BM-WW: Trinity, and the good arcs of the Superman/Batman book.

 

[Nightwing1983]

On Earth, the super-tyke was found and adopted by a couple. They loved him and taught him to conceal his super-secret from the world. They told him that someday he must use his incredible abilities to aid those less gifted than he. And he would fight for justice, too!

The boy would grow up to become the colorfully costumed super-powered Superman!

Excitedly, I got out of bed and wrote that down. Yawning, I went back to bed and fell asleep.

I awoke a little later. More ideas came to me. This Superman would lead a double-life. As headline-hunting newspaper reporter Clark Kent, he would hide behind a false front of pretended timidity, so that no one would suspect that he was secretly the crusading, all-powerful Superman. As a furthering disguise, meek, mild Clark Kent would wear eyeglasses, which would give a somewhat intellectual, inhibited appearance.

This is a defense for him to use this meek, mild disguise (though this is different from the over-the-top Urkelesque portrayal of some) and true, no matter what he does as Clark Kent, he's still only pretending to be someone who doesn't have super powers and all that. On the other hand, it doesn't make Superman any less of an alias, nor that he wasn't raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent (or whatever version of their names you want to use) and that everything about his formative years went uninformed by them.

As for Maggin, well, he wrote one of my favorite Superman Stories--"Must There be a Superman," which is an example of sophistication in Superman comics long before 1986 that many seem to miss out on--but I don't agree with him.

Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."

Even if he sees Clark as nothing more than a disguise, I don't know where this "demon" crp comes from. Yes, Superman has to be a consumate actor or Lois has to be an idiot. That's why I'm all for Clark being something of a construct, but Superman has to be something of a construct, too. Superman is not his real name any more than Clark Kent is, and just as any version of Clark must hide his powers, Superman must also hide that he was raised by the Kents.

Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I really fail to see how the saxophone is Clinton's "demon" (even if there's something wrong with playing the sax, I think he had a bigger one), so I really don't get his point here.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently.

Yes and no. Clark has to die in that Superman will eventually need to stop going to the Daily Planet and saying, "yeah, I'm just another reporter here" (unless he reveals everything to the world); but at the same time, the boy who was named Clark who was raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent (or Sara and Eben or Mary and Sailas or whatever you want to call them) will live as long as the man who flies around in a blue bodysuit and red cape saving people and vanquishing villains.

Why?

Because they're the same person.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I don't realistically expect anyone to agree with me on these matters, however. All I'm really doing is saying my piece. I know that today's fans could honestly care less about guys like Siegel or Kirby or Bill Finger...to them they just did comics ages ago that are very lame and out of date now. It is what it is, I guess.

Unless you re a dog too old for new tricks, i dont see why you re so stuck with the original creators. I honestly believe that its good that they evolve the ideas to suit the tastes of each era. And when they fail, a retcon is always a few years away. What if the original idea is 7/10 but the new idea is 9/10? You still wouldnt accept it because some guy wrote it differently during the 2nd WW, when women couldnt vote, and black people were still discriminated against.
I am just referencing these to show you how times have changed.

Besides, Johns is writing a more balanced origin from the looks of it.

This Superman would lead a double-life. As headline-hunting newspaper reporter Clark Kent, he would hide behind a false front of pretended timidity, so that no one would suspect that he was secretly the crusading, all-powerful Superman. As a furthering disguise, meek, mild Clark Kent would wear eyeglasses, which would give a somewhat intellectual, inhibited appearance.

That's still the case. So current Superman IS true to his core.

Also, it makes no sense for Superman to be the real person and Clark being a loser construct when Superman has no life. He is just a guy who saves people when Clark has a job, wants Lois, etc. Clark is the meek disguise but he doesnt have to be undignified about it. Like Wayne who acts aloof and spoiled, current Clark changes his appearence and acts a bit nerdy. The equivalent of Donner's Clark is Bruce Wayne pretending to have Downs syndrome as his public persona. Why would anyone do that?

 

[Kurosawa]

I guess Kurosawa never read "World of Krypton". Superman clearly feels the loss of his real parents and Jor-el`s sacrifice to save him. He even cries. One more example that Kurosawa don`t know a thing he`s talking about.

I read the real "World of Krypton" that came out in 1979. I saw the Byrne book, can't remember if I ever read it or not. I doubt that I did since I didn't like his changes and his Krypton at all.

Did you ever consider that multiple characters exist to serve a different purpose? Not everything has to be grimdark and miserable.

Batman: Detective, grimdark, street level
Spiderman: College life and problems, a kid trying to figure out life, etc
Ironman: Technology
Thor: Mythology, magic
Superman: Lots of powers, happier, lighter, more optimistic.

Besides, has Batman always sold so well? NO.
If something is to blame for Superman's lower sales, its the general writing and story telling. They keep rehashing it and telling the same stories again and again and again. The origin, Lex, supergirl's arrival, etc.
Batman's story is ongoing. He gets new Robins, some die, his back gets broken, he dies, he comes back, he fights new villains, etc. Superman's story is finished and they keep retelling it in new ways instead of going forward. I havent read the current New Krypton arc but hell, its sounds innovative and fresh. BTW he's got an adopted son of his own. Its all a step in the right direction.I know quite a few adopted kids and i know that it was a huge shock to them when they found out. Now imagine not only being adopted, but being adopted by another species, having strange powers, and being afraid that people will be disgusted by you, and the goverment will experiment on you. I think Clark has a big enough luggage as it is. That's one thing. But Martha is left all alone to spend the few remaining years of her life in the middle of nowhere.

Characters go through phases but they stop selling when they go so far from what made them work in the first place that they are unrecognizable. Like campy Batman after the novelty of the TV show wore off. Or Byrne's Superman after the novelty of them crapping on the Silver/Bronze Age versions and those fans wore off then they killed him, which was the next gimmick. Although that was actually well done.

Superman was always about a guy with great powers doing great things, in lighter stories (lighter than Batman i mean).
I couldnt give a **** about the details of Superman's core, as long as he's become better through the years. And judging by the fact that most fans in other forums love Superman as he is now, i think you should respect what other people like and accept change.

Superman hasnt had a heir like the Flash, or Robin, or Green Lantern had, so while the heirs of those characters progressed and evolved the basic idea, Superman was getting stuck there. Even batman progressed and incorporated new ideas.
You think that Superman is so special because Clark is the disguise? I think he's special because he is DCU's Jesus, or DCU's Captain America. The guy who will catch you rob a store and just by looking at you make you will make you feel sorry. Batman is fear, Superman is Jesus.

And to be honest, Clark is still the disguise. He tilts his back, wears bigger clothes, wears glasses when he doesnt need them and throws his hair on his face to cover it. Its still the disguise but in an external way. Clark still keeps his dignity and acts like the good guy he is supposed to be. Why would anyone care about the bozo Clark of the olden days? Why would anyone want to act like that when Clark achieves nothing that way?

Can he get a woman that way? NO.
Can he influence the world with his journalism when he's a joke? NO.
Can he influence his coworkers at the Planet? NO. They dont even give a **** about him.
Can he lead a happy life as a respected person? NO.

Why wouldnt Clark be a good journalist or stand up for what's good as Clark? Why wouldnt he try to have a happy life by being a good guy? No one suggested he acts like a champ or a badass.

And one more thing. The original Clark was too cold, Byrne's Clark was too hot, perhaps Johns will write a Clark in room temperature using the best parts of both worlds.

I'm not completely on board with the clutzy Clark myself. I just feel that Clark needs to be more of a separate entity from Superman, that there should be a real and palpable difference between the two. It's probably better explained by reading some Bronze Age Superman stuff, especially "Who Took the Super out of Superman?".

Johns might, although he's done his share of crapping on Superman too. The only writer active right now that I trust completely with Supes is Morrison.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Characters go through phases but they stop selling when they go so far from what made them work in the first place that they are unrecognizable. Like campy Batman after the novelty of the TV show wore off. Or Byrne's Superman after the novelty of them crapping on the Silver/Bronze Age versions and those fans wore off until they killed him, which was the next gimmick. Although that was actually well done.

I think that sales nowadays depend on innovation. These heroes have gotten old and they need new paths. They did that with Batman. Morrison's Bruce stories have been more Silver Age-ish (a change from the grimdark 90ies), new characters were introduced and old ones were reinvented (Club of Heroes, Damian), and then Bruce died and Dick took over. Its all very alive and colourful.

And they re kind of doing it with Superman too. He's got an adopted son of his own and there's a new Krypton orbiting in our solar system and Clark is currently serving there as an army officer. I havent read New Krypton to tell you why it isnt selling like B&R (i bet TDK has helped Batman's comics sales. If you visit deviantart you'll see tons of girls drawing Stef, the current Batgirl who most comic fans hate. So TDK has drawn many many people from the looks of it), but at least it sounds like they re doing new stuff.

Johns might, although he's done his share of crapping on Superman too. The only writer active right now that I trust completely with Supes is Morrison.

Has he written anything other than All-Star?
I kind of liked it, but it was too out there with Morrison's pseudo science crap and dopey adventures. And Clark was too much of a loser for my tastes.

 

[Kurosawa]

I think that sales nowadays depend on innovation. These heroes have gotten old and they need new paths. They did that with Batman. Morrison's Bruce stories have been more Silver Age-ish (a change from the grimdark 90ies), new characters were introduced and old ones were reinvented (Club of Heroes, Damian), and then Bruce died and Dick took over. Its all very alive and colourful.

And they re kind of doing it with Superman too. He's got an adopted son of his own and there's a new Krypton orbiting in our solar system and Clark is currently serving there as an army officer. I havent read New Krypton to tell you why it isnt selling like B&R (i bet TDK has helped Batman's comics sales. If you visit deviantart you'll see tons of girls drawing Stef, the current Batgirl who most comic fans hate. So TDK has drawn many many people from the looks of it), but at least it sounds like they re doing new stuff.
Has he written anything other than All-Star?
I kind of liked it, but it was too out there with Morrison's pseudo science crap and dopey adventures. And Clark was too much of a loser for my tastes.

Yeah, I've read some of it...they handled it way better in the comics than Singer did in SR.

Pretty sure All-Star is the only solo Superman story Morrison has written. Either it or Kingdom Come is my favorite Post-Crisis Superman story.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I honestly think World of New Krypton and, to a lesser extent, most of what DC has done since 2006, has just been a big middle-finger to those of us who hated Superman Returns.

 

[Webhead2006]

First, no matter how many sets of parents of his die, he doesn't "lose his heritage." He was still born on Krypton (or at-least conceived there) and he still grew up in Smallville.

Second, maybe I don't understand what you mean, but aren't Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, Cat Grant, select JLA teammates (if applicable) and even--in a "they're not all good" kind-of way--Lex Luthor and all the other Earthborn criminals he battles his "anchors to humanity?"

oh those characters are important to. i was just making that post of mind reguarding krypton and the kents.

 

[Kurosawa]

This is a defense for him to use this meek, mild disguise (though this is different from the over-the-top Urkelesque portrayal of some) and true, no matter what he does as Clark Kent, he's still only pretending to be someone who doesn't have super powers and all that. On the other hand, it doesn't make Superman any less of an alias, nor that he wasn't raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent (or whatever version of their names you want to use) and that everything about his formative years went uninformed by them.

Mostly its a personal statement of how Superman represents wish fulfillment.

As for Maggin, well, he wrote one of my favorite Superman Stories--"Must There be a Superman," which is an example of sophistication in Superman comics long before 1986 that many seem to miss out on--but I don't agree with him.



Even if he sees Clark as nothing more than a disguise, I don't know where this "demon" crp comes from. Yes, Superman has to be a consumate actor or Lois has to be an idiot. That's why I'm all for Clark being something of a construct, but Superman has to be something of a construct, too. Superman is not his real name any more than Clark Kent is, and just as any version of Clark must hide his powers, Superman must also hide that he was raised by the Kents. I really fail to see how the saxophone is Clinton's "demon" (even if there's something wrong with playing the sax, I think he had a bigger one), so I really don't get his point here.

I think "demon" has no evil or dark connotations as Maggin uses it; basically he means it is a compulsion.

Yes and no. Clark has to die in that Superman will eventually need to stop going to the Daily Planet and saying, "yeah, I'm just another reporter here" (unless he reveals everything to the world); but at the same time, the boy who was named Clark who was raised by Martha and Jonathan Kent (or Sara and Eben or Mary and Sailas or whatever you want to call them) will live as long as the man who flies around in a blue bodysuit and red cape saving people and vanquishing villains.

Why?

Because they're the same person.

Yeah, they are. There is more than one Clark-the public Clark and the Private Clark that Ma and Pa Kent raised. I don't see a major difference between Superman and Kal-El, though. So I feel there are two personalities, three if you count the more private Clark, although in my mind the Kents have passed on so there is no one else who knew Clark in that manner.

I honestly think World of New Krypton and, to a lesser extent, most of what DC has done since 2006, has just been a big middle-finger to those of us who hated Superman Returns.

I imagine they planned on SR being a huge hit and moved their comics to line up with it somewhat. It's bad to count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Go read World of Krypton and then come talk about how Superman doesn`t care about his parents or legacy...

Or even the Exile and Eradicator saga.

Superman does care about Krypton in post-crisis. A Lot.

AND BYRNE`S CLARK IS STILL a little bit of a DISGUISE. He`s just not a bafoon and stupid nerd like Chris Reeve`s Clark.

People keep saying BS without never reading comics...

Kurosawa, If Superman is ALSO not a little bit of disguise, then why the hell he lies to protect the people who know his secret identity?

Both Clark & Superman are a bit of disguise. The difference between Byrne`s Clark and the pre-crisis version is that he made the change ALSO phsycollogical. He added to the Superman duality, writing Clark as ALSO a real man, a real reporter with real feelings, someone who Lois could fall in love with instead of the whole world knowing that Lois is Superman`s girlfriend.

It`s there, written in Man of Steel #1. Doesn`t he comb his hair back, change his manneirisms a bit when he put the glasses on? He is STILL a disguise. But not a joke as represented in the pre-crisis version and the movies.

Metropolis Clark & Superman are both extensions of Clark`s personality. And by Superman being the disguise, i don`t mean his actions are. He still lies to protect people who know his identiy.

Superman, with BYRNE, became a much more interesting and layered character instead of the simplistic dual-identity, take of pre-crisis.

With Byrne`s revamp, BOTH ARE REAL AND BOTH ARE DISGUISES IN A WAY OR ANOTHER.


Go read some goddamn comics instead of crapping on what you CLEARLY DON`T KNOW.

 

[Kurosawa]

Go read World of Krypton and then come talk about how Superman doesn`t care about his parents or legacy...

Or even the Exile and Eradicator saga.

Superman does care about Krypton in post-crisis. A Lot.

AND BYRNE`S CLARK IS STILL a little bit of a DISGUISE. He`s just not a bafoon and stupid nerd like Chris Reeve`s Clark.

People keep saying BS without never reading comics...

Kurosawa, If Superman is ALSO not a little bit of disguise, then why the hell he lies to protect the people who know his secret identity?

Both Clark & Superman are a bit of disguise. The difference between Byrne`s Clark and the pre-crisis version is that he made the change ALSO phsycollogical. He added to the Superman duality, writing Clark as ALSO a real man, a real reporter with real feelings, someone who Lois could fall in love with instead of the whole world knowing that Lois is Superman`s girlfriend.

It`s there, written in Man of Steel #1. Doesn`t he comb his hair back, change his manneirisms a bit when he put the glasses on? He is STILL a disguise. But not a joke as represented in the pre-crisis version and the movies.

Metropolis Clark & Superman are both extensions of Clark`s personality. And by Superman being the disguise, i don`t mean his actions are. He still lies to protect people who know his identiy.

Superman, with BYRNE, became a much more interesting and layered character instead of the simplistic dual-identity, take of pre-crisis.

With Byrne`s revamp, BOTH ARE REAL AND BOTH ARE DISGUISES IN A WAY OR ANOTHER.


Go read some goddamn comics instead of crapping on what you CLEARLY DON`T KNOW.

I read most of that stuff when it first came out and didn't like it. I've ****ing said that over and over that I've read it. Just because I didn't read a mini-series with his piss-poor ugly as **** "Krypton" doesn't mean I didn't read, buy and still own the rest of the stuff. I assume you've read Pre-Crisis Superman comics and you don't like them. So yes, I do know Post-Crisis Superman. I just don't like it.

I don't agree at all that Byrne improved Siegel and Shuster's creation in any way, except that he and later Jurgens developed more credible villains. That's not changing. That's what purist means. We'll just have to see if Johns revisions will result in a Superman that fans of all eras will like or one that no one will like. But no Superman where Clark is the reality and Superman the construct will ever be authentic to me. The smart way to play it, imo, it to make it ambiguous because that allows Clark to be relatable and leaves the question of who is the real guy open for discussion. As soon as he switches to the other identity he needs to become a different person, at least to a degree. No other superheroes secret identity is discussed or analyzed as much as Clark because none of them are nearly as interesting.

 

[SuperDaniel]

You still seem to fail to read my posts and the comics because everything you said is just plain misreading, BS and lack of understanding.

In post-crisis, Metropolis Clark is STILL a disguise. Like i sad, its written there, in man of steel n#1. He puts glasses on, combs his hair, adjust mannerisms and all, he hides his powers, etc.

He is ALSO a real person, treated with normal feelings, with a normal background, someone that Lois could eventually fall in love with. He is just not treated as a joke like the Chris Reeve Clark. Byrne said many times he based his Clark in the George Reeves TV series. Basically, Metropolis Clark and Smallville Clark is the same person. Clark uses journalism to uncover the truth events and at the same time, control what the public knows about Superman...

Superman is ALSO real as in he is a man of action. Superman in the Byrne era was never a disguise in the sense he alter his manneirisms. No It`s written there in Man of Steel #2 as Superman flies over Metropolis, before saving Lois., something like this:

"It is so good to be be free and fly without hiding my powers"

Superman IS WHO HE IS, IT ALSO WHAT HE CAN DO but Clark is ALSO who he is and how he was raised.

Clark is just the human part of Superman and Superman, is a symbol.

But both are real. The difference, if you EVER read the comics, is that Clark isn`t portrayed as a charicature. The secret to this identity is how the people of Metropolis sees both. Superman is viewed as a symbol, something so far away and detached from our ways of life that people don`t look at Clark, a simple mild-mannered normal reporter with glasses, and see this alien god who can fly. They just see Clark as a normal guy, one of us. And the beautyof the story is still there, true to the core of Superman, as written by Siegel and Shuster. Inside all of us, mild-mannered, working class normal human beings(Clark), there`s a Superman who is able to make the world a better place if we want to. What makes Superman great is that he could`ve been Earth`s Apocalypse. No. He chose to be Earth`s protector, a task he performs with pride and joy.

Post-crisis added layers to the Superman character, made him more complex, like a real character.

How the hell isn`t that staying true to the core?

GO READ SOME GODDAMN COMICS INSTEAD OF TALKING BS!

Some people, artists and writers included just don`t understand what`s this all about. People like to generalize and simplify stuff with a frase or something but the reason why Superman has survived all these years is that he is a very complex character and with many phsycological layers that somehow represents how we are and what we want to achieve as species.

 

[Daybreak_st]

:
Originally Posted by Jerry Siegel

I awoke a little later. More ideas came to me. This Superman would lead a double-life. As headline-hunting newspaper reporter Clark Kent, he would hide behind a false front of pretended timidity, so that no one would suspect that he was secretly the crusading, all-powerful Superman. As a furthering disguise, meek, mild Clark Kent would wear eyeglasses, which would give a somewhat intellectual, inhibited appearance.

For romantic interest (romance makes the world go 'round, and it could add zest to the "SUPERMAN" comic strip), I would add a very gutsy and extremely beautiful girl reporter, Lois Lane, into the strip's cast of characters. Lois would scorn klutzy Clark. She would have a crush on Superman, totally unaware that Clark and Superman were one-and-the-same person!

This time I almost fell out of bed in my haste to get it all down in script form on paper. Much later, I returned to bed, one happy guy. I felt I had come up with sure-fire ingredients for a smash-hit comic strip.

Supie, you know and I know that much of that premise came out of my own personal frustrations. I wore spectacles and was a high school boy who wrote for the school newspaper. Introverted, my thoughts kept dwelling on science-fiction, thriller pulp magazines and the movies.

There were some lovely high school girls who I admired from afar. They were not the least bit interested in me. I was not Clark (Kent) Gable. I was just another face in the crowded, busy high school corridors.

Those attractive schoolgirls in the classes and corridors didn't care that I existed. But!! If I were to wear a colorful, skintight costume! If I could run faster than a train, lift great weights easily, and leap over skyscrapers in a single bound! Then they would notice me!

This by the way is an excellent quote. And if you actual read the hilighted parts, it in no way implies that he was going for the whole: supes is real clark is only a mask etc. Read what he said. He in no way implies that the entire clark persona is a mask. No. He says "As headline-hunting newspaper reporter Clark Kent, he would hide behind a false front of pretended timidity, so that no one would suspect that he was secretly the crusading, all-powerful Superman". Notice the "hide behind a false front of pretended timidity". That's the disguise. NOT his entire persona. He's still the same clark, but while superman or smallville clark isn't the least bit timid, metropolis clark acts differently. Simple as that. He in NO way implies that clark is some sophisticated contruct, a completely separate persona or whatever some people keep asserting. NO based on the quote that was not his intention.

Originally Posted by Elliot S! Maggin
Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."
Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently.

See the majority of your agrument is coming from this guy, and he IS NOT one of the original creators. His quote above bears little if any resemblance to what Siegel said in his quote. so how you can somehow accept what this guy projects onto the character as being authentic but then reject any other versions of him as some "evil" perpetrated by dc comics is beyond me.

 

[Daybreak_st]

with a character that has essentially become modern day mythology, i think it's fine for new writers to provide fresh takes on a character like superman. Otherwise you eventually run out of interesting stories to tell. Just look at the hulk for example.

He's pretty much a one trick pony, "hulk smash". How long before those stories get old? Various writers have chosen to work around this by delving into the psychology of the character more thus giving us gray hulk, savage hulk, and smart hulk among others. Recently something that couldn't have been further from the original plan, "planet hulk" received a great amount of notoriety. Why? Because it was fresh take on a character that could easily become boring if you're not creative with it. It all boils down to good writing.

I'm pretty sure that a good solid writer could take any number of third string characters and transform them into a-list material. Conversely a bad writer can take terrific character and make them clichéd and boring. It boils down to writing.

My personal favorite version of a modern superman was birthright, just a fantastic take on the character and his supporting characters all around. I also enjoyed All-star superman. A very different look at the same character. how can you enjoy both you ask? Because they were both well written and respectful of the character. In the end that's all that really matters.

I'm also looking forward to Superman: Earth One from JMS, as i read in an interview he's a huge supes fan and wants to address issues, like why clark chooses to become a reporter. with all of his abilities he could've excelled at any number of fields, why this? Cool/valid question. also he wrote imho one of the best superman pastiches in Hyperion form Supreme Power (again haven't read entire story just Hyperion’s origins). I think he can bring some good stuff to the table.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You still seem to fail to read my posts and the comics because everything you said is just plain misreading, BS and lack of understanding.

In post-crisis, Metropolis Clark is STILL a disguise. Like i sad, its written there, in man of steel n#1. He puts glasses on, combs his hair, adjust mannerisms and all, he hides his powers, etc.

He is ALSO a real person, treated with normal feelings, with a normal background, someone that Lois could eventually fall in love with. He is just not treated as a joke like the Chris Reeve Clark. Byrne said many times he based his Clark in the George Reeves TV series. Basically, Metropolis Clark and Smallville Clark is the same person. Clark uses journalism to uncover the truth events and at the same time, control what the public knows about Superman...

Superman is ALSO real as in he is a man of action. Superman in the Byrne era was never a disguise in the sense he alter his manneirisms. No It`s written there in Man of Steel #2 as Superman flies over Metropolis, before saving Lois., something like this:

"It is so good to be be free and fly without hiding my powers"

Superman IS WHO HE IS, IT ALSO WHAT HE CAN DO but Clark is ALSO who he is and how he was raised.

Clark is just the human part of Superman and Superman, is a symbol.

But both are real. The difference, if you EVER read the comics, is that Clark isn`t portrayed as a charicature. The secret to this identity is how the people of Metropolis sees both. Superman is viewed as a symbol, something so far away and detached from our ways of life that people don`t look at Clark, a simple mild-mannered normal reporter with glasses, and see this alien god who can fly. They just see Clark as a normal guy, one of us. And the beautyof the story is still there, true to the core of Superman, as written by Siegel and Shuster. Inside all of us, mild-mannered, working class normal human beings(Clark), there`s a Superman who is able to make the world a better place if we want to. What makes Superman great is that he could`ve been Earth`s Apocalypse. No. He chose to be Earth`s protector, a task he performs with pride and joy.

Post-crisis added layers to the Superman character, made him more complex, like a real character.

How the hell isn`t that staying true to the core?

GO READ SOME GODDAMN COMICS INSTEAD OF TALKING BS!

Some people, artists and writers included just don`t understand what`s this all about. People like to generalize and simplify stuff with a frase or something but the reason why Superman has survived all these years is that he is a very complex character and with many phsycological layers that somehow represents how we are and what we want to achieve as species.

I agree 1000000000%.

I 'd like to add that what Kurosawa suggests, Reeve's Superman, makes no sense for one more reason (i stated quite a few in my posts above): Clark would have to be acting and being ridiculed for the 60% of his life, making him a fake and a liar. Why would he be fake from his childhood till now? Clark needs to have a normal life because his psychology is human. And to have a normal life he needs to be a human being, not a clown.

So all he does is discreetly change his appearence and hold back his powers and assertiveness.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Like SD said, the post-Crisis Clark is still a disguise, and I'd like to add to that, so is the pre-Crisis Superman. Neither set of parents actually named him Superman, he has to put on that costume before he's recognized by anyone else as "Superman," and while by the Bronze-era he was spending all his spare time at either the Fortress or the Watchtower (making Clark a redundancy), in the Siegel & Shuster days, he lived at the apartment of one Clark Kent, though occasionally he hid out at a mountain retreat.

I don't like how it's so popular to scapegoat the pre-Crisis Superman, but the pro-pre-Crisis snobbery I've seen people retaliate with is almost baffling.

 

[Kurosawa]

You still seem to fail to read my posts and the comics because everything you said is just plain misreading, BS and lack of understanding.

In post-crisis, Metropolis Clark is STILL a disguise. Like i sad, its written there, in man of steel n#1. He puts glasses on, combs his hair, adjust mannerisms and all, he hides his powers, etc.

He is ALSO a real person, treated with normal feelings, with a normal background, someone that Lois could eventually fall in love with. He is just not treated as a joke like the Chris Reeve Clark. Byrne said many times he based his Clark in the George Reeves TV series. Basically, Metropolis Clark and Smallville Clark is the same person. Clark uses journalism to uncover the truth events and at the same time, control what the public knows about Superman...

Superman is ALSO real as in he is a man of action. Superman in the Byrne era was never a disguise in the sense he alter his manneirisms. No It`s written there in Man of Steel #2 as Superman flies over Metropolis, before saving Lois., something like this:

"It is so good to be be free and fly without hiding my powers"

Superman IS WHO HE IS, IT ALSO WHAT HE CAN DO but Clark is ALSO who he is and how he was raised.

Clark is just the human part of Superman and Superman, is a symbol.

But both are real. The difference, if you EVER read the comics, is that Clark isn`t portrayed as a charicature. The secret to this identity is how the people of Metropolis sees both. Superman is viewed as a symbol, something so far away and detached from our ways of life that people don`t look at Clark, a simple mild-mannered normal reporter with glasses, and see this alien god who can fly. They just see Clark as a normal guy, one of us. And the beautyof the story is still there, true to the core of Superman, as written by Siegel and Shuster. Inside all of us, mild-mannered, working class normal human beings(Clark), there`s a Superman who is able to make the world a better place if we want to. What makes Superman great is that he could`ve been Earth`s Apocalypse. No. He chose to be Earth`s protector, a task he performs with pride and joy.

Post-crisis added layers to the Superman character, made him more complex, like a real character.

How the hell isn`t that staying true to the core?

GO READ SOME GODDAMN COMICS INSTEAD OF TALKING BS!

Some people, artists and writers included just don`t understand what`s this all about. People like to generalize and simplify stuff with a frase or something but the reason why Superman has survived all these years is that he is a very complex character and with many phsycological layers that somehow represents how we are and what we want to achieve as species.

I HAVE read those comics. Just because YOU enjoy them doesn't mean that I'm going to. I read them when they first came out, I've reread them since, they've never worked for me. Just like you could go read some Pre-Crisis comics and while they worked for me, for you they were too silly or unrealistic or whatever. What you see as adding layers I saw as taking shots at what he was before and at people who were fans of that Superman. To me everytime they had his cape torn to bits or they had these scenes with Clark playing football in high school or stating "Superman is what I do, Clark is who I am.", etc, I felt it was a big FU to fans like me and to the comics we liked.

I just don't like that stuff, and it's not like I'm going to "see the light" and decide that they had Superman wrong for 50 years and that Byrne fixed it. I don't how much more clear I can make it that that. I could quote scenes and dialogue from the comics that I liked to you, and you would still reject that version because it's not what you like.

 

[Kurosawa]

Like SD said, the post-Crisis Clark is still a disguise, and I'd like to add to that, so is the pre-Crisis Superman. Neither set of parents actually named him Superman, he has to put on that costume before he's recognized by anyone else as "Superman," and while by the Bronze-era he was spending all his spare time at either the Fortress or the Watchtower (making Clark a redundancy), in the Siegel & Shuster days, he lived at the apartment of one Clark Kent, though occasionally he hid out at a mountain retreat.

I don't like how it's so popular to scapegoat the pre-Crisis Superman, but the pro-pre-Crisis snobbery I've seen people retaliate with is almost baffling.

Actually Pre-Crisis he was named Superman or Superboy by John or Jonathan Kent according to which Earth it was. Also there was no Watchtower Pre-Crisis, it was the JLA satellite. And actually he spent most of his spare time as Clark. Clark even had his own backup series.

And people me have the backlash against Post-Crisis fans for damn good reasons. It gets old hearing the comics you like being put down as stupid like every single story was Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy or Beppo when it damn well was not.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You re still replying with "i read them but didnt like them" and not acknowledging the point we are trying to make for the last 100 posts.
That Clark is still a persona to a certain degree, and so is Superman. The real person is the one we see when Clark is with his parents or Lois.
You can choose not to like it, but you have to acknowledge our point, or at least address it.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Actually Pre-Crisis he was named Superman or Superboy by John or Jonathan Kent according to which Earth it was.

I seem to recall some sort of "you will be a Superman among people," or whatever, but when they enrolled him in school, applied for his driver's license and all that, I have to imagine they listed him as Clark Kent.

Also there was no Watchtower Pre-Crisis, it was the JLA satellite.

Semantics.

And actually he spent most of his spare time as Clark. Clark even had his own backup series.

If that's true, that actually further-demonstrates my point. I remember a few stories where he went to this function and that what-not with Lois or Lana as Clark, and a lot of times when he was d*cking around in the Fortress, so they're probably even.

And people me have the backlash against Post-Crisis fans for damn good reasons. It gets old hearing the comics you like being put down as stupid like every single story was Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy or Beppo when it damn well was not.

That I can agree with 100%. And I'll go you one further: what the Hell is wrong with Turtle Boy or Beppo (heck, the beloved '96 animated series even payed homage to the Bepster in its own little way). There is a very real temptation to fight fire with fire, so I do understand and am less baffled.

Edit: Still, I think there are too many people who apply any random criticism toward Superman and it's so easy for one side to blame the other. I don't know how many times I've heard, "oh, everyone thinks Superman is too powerful because of the Donner films where he traveled back in time..." when I never heard anyone specify that that's what they were referring to, as opposed to--say--the animated series or just the general gestalt of the character. It'd just be nice if the fans could like the character more regardless of any era.

Having said that, the 2006-whenever it stops era has been a bad time in my opinion, so eventually everyone's gonna unite against me when I really start to let loose.

 

[Kurosawa]

I seem to recall some sort of "you will be a Superman among people," or whatever, but when they enrolled him in school, applied for his driver's license and all that, I have to imagine they listed him as Clark Kent.

Well, yeah.

Semantics.

True.

If that's true, that actually further-demonstrates my point. I remember a few stories where he went to this function and that what-not with Lois or Lana as Clark, and a lot of times when he was d*cking around in the Fortress, so they're probably even.

Stories without Clark usually disinterest me quickly.

That I can agree with 100%. And I'll go you one further: what the Hell is wrong with Turtle Boy or Beppo (heck, the beloved '96 animated series even payed homage to the Bepster in its own little way). There is a very real temptation to fight fire with fire, so I do understand and am less baffled.

Edit: Still, I think there are too many people who apply any random criticism toward Superman and it's so easy for one side to blame the other. I don't know how many times I've heard, "oh, everyone thinks Superman is too powerful because of the Donner films where he traveled back in time..." when I never heard anyone specify that that's what they were referring to, as opposed to--say--the animated series or just the general gestalt of the character. It'd just be nice if the fans could like the character more regardless of any era.

Having said that, the 2006-whenever it stops era has been a bad time in my opinion, so eventually everyone's gonna unite against me when I really start to let loose.

I don't see what's fun with some wild, fun stories either. I don't they'll really settle on a direction for Supes until they have the legal situation settled.