What the hell did you emos do to Superman?

[ThatNickGuy]

Nope on both Superman and Batman. Batman is his true face, whereas Bruce Wayne is a foppish, playboy persona that he puts on to mislead the public eye. Yes, he's still Bruce Wayne the person, but that's not how he sees himself anymore. Spidey, I can agree on, because that's the whole idea behind him is that Spidey is kind of a release for him.

Superman, on the other hand, you're partly right. He puts on a certain act as Metropolis Clark, but he was raised as Clark for years before he found out who he was or where he came from. The current idea is that his powers didn't develop until his early teens. So he spends his early life thinking he's exceptional, but still human. It's like the episode of the Animated Series (my favourite version of Superman, period), where he accidentally rips off the wing of a plane and says to himself, "Nice one, Clark." He dons the costume because he needs to use his powers to help people. I've seen him say on multiple occasions that he would love to lead an ordinary life, but he continues the never-ending battle because it's the right thing to do.

It's a matter of nature vs. nurture. If he were to lead a life on Krypton, first, then yes, he would see himself as Kal-El or Superman first. But he arrived on Earth as a baby and was raised as a human for the first decade and a half of his life. His upbringing was with humans and it wasn't until later in life that he put on the persona of Superman. In fact, he didn't even name himself Superman. Lois did. Or certainly the media. That's different from Batman and Spider-Man.

 

[PatrThom]

try giving "up up and away" a read dave. it looks at the whole supes/clark thing. really the "which is a mask?" comes down to a nature v nurture type debate and good writers are able to play off that in interesting ways.

You mean stories like "The Nail?" or stories like Niven's Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex?

--Patrick

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Lex in a giant robot suit has only happened again in the last few years. Pre-Crisis, he was the criminal mastermind with a purple and green powersuit. But after that, and my personal favourite, he was an untouchable and wealthy business man.

Personally, I prefer the newer spin. It makes sense that if he landed on Earth as a baby, raised as a human, that he would first think of himself as human and therefore, Clark.

 

[Dave]

I'll give you the Batman argument but I stand by my assertion that he's Supes first and Kent second.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Even though I specifically mention the nature vs. nurture argument? Sorry Dave, but I think you're just refusing to realize that it ain't the case.

 

[Dave]

Even though I specifically mention the nature vs. nurture argument? Sorry Dave, but I think you're just refusing to realize that it ain't the case.

And you've already admitted that you like the more modern interpretation, which is a watered down and wussified neo-political view of the superhero genre. Sorry, man. I stick with the classics and the new Supes (however many of him there now are) ain't it.

And yes, I realize the futility of arguing Superman with ThatNickGuy.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

They don't call me "Brick" for nothin'. I'm stubborn.

 

[Dave]

ThatBrickGuy?

 

[North_Ranger]

I'm a bit late to the party, but what the heck, here's my €0.02 on the matter.

To me, Superman is to superheroes what Mickey Mouse is to Disney: an archetypal boy scout hero, brilliant, clever, good-natured, can never do anything wrong. He's the square-jawed defender of justice who arrives with a flash of light and a trumpet fanfare to beat the villain du jour so he can hand them over to the authorities - who will eventually bungle and let the villain escape. Rinse and repeat.

The problem with this archetype for me is that it all seems way too clean-cut. Superman is, all things considered, a muscle-bound boy scout in a leotard, helping the helpless and just about being a walking (flying?) role model. Compared to heroes that are of greyer morality (Batman) or somehow broken inside (Batman, again), this offers a relatively narrow supply of dramatic material. Granted, Supes has some pretty decent material too - the dichotomy between Superman and Clark Kent, the contemplations about using his power - but it's a sandwhich and a coke compared to the smorgaesbord of Batman.

I might be wrong, of course... My exposure to Supes is limited to two or three comic books I read as a kid, the DCAU series, Justice League of America the animated series, and WWII-era animated shorts.

 

[LittleSin]

Superman is way more complex then that North Ranger.

He has failed in the past both on personal and superhero levels. The books would not have been very entertaining if the hero didn't have some human failings!

As for him being 'boy scoutish'....what is wrong with that? Shouldn't a hero have a set moral code? What's wrong with doing good no matter what? Even if it means doing good on behalf of your own villains some times. Superman is a symbol of human decency and goodness, something that can be lost in an age where most superhero comics count on blood baths and body counts.

I think people just don't get what Superman is.

 

[figmentPez]

As for him being 'boy scoutish'....what is wrong with that? Shouldn't a hero have a set moral code? What's wrong with doing good no matter what?

The problem arises when that aspect is written badly. Take Superman Vs Aliens for example. I know that "Superman doesn't kill" is the general rule, but when his powers are rapidly dwindling, xenomorphs have blinded him with acid, and people are dying, Superman shouldn't be pulling his punches wondering if he's fighting something intelligent. That's not being honorable, that's being dumb as a brick, and that's what can be annoying about "the big blue Boy Scout". Sometimes Superman just waffles his way through a plot, and it's exceptionally annoying when he doesn't do the good he ought to, because he's too busy worrying about abusing his powers. I think the Boy Scout thing only works when he draws a line in the sand, and acts on it.

 

[LittleSin]

We agree on that. It's terribly hard to write Superman, or any "Lawful Good" character, well. You can be be extremely moral and still not be waffling wimp.

 

[twitchmoss]

just remembered 'whats so funny about truth, justice and the american way'. Been a while since i read it, but i remember it being a pretty awesome takedown of the 'supermans a dated character with no relevance today' idea. especially his speech at the end.

 

[North_Ranger]

Superman is way more complex then that North Ranger.

He has failed in the past both on personal and superhero levels. The books would not have been very entertaining if the hero didn't have some human failings!

As for him being 'boy scoutish'....what is wrong with that? Shouldn't a hero have a set moral code? What's wrong with doing good no matter what? Even if it means doing good on behalf of your own villains some times. Superman is a symbol of human decency and goodness, something that can be lost in an age where most superhero comics count on blood baths and body counts.

I think people just don't get what Superman is.

Like I said, dear Forum Cthulhu, my exposure to Supes has been extremely limited, so I hope you will pardon my ignorance

And a moral code is okay. I've just had this mental image of Supes sometimes delving a little too deep into the Lawful Stupid end of the pool (mainly from JLA, I admittedly), so that is likely colouring my perception of him. I do, however, prefer my (super)heroes who necessarily aren't such shining heroes. To use a Disney example, I don't really go for Mickey Mouse who is always on top of the game, always the smart guy, the all-solving detective, the shining hero or whatever. Like Carl Barks and Don Rosa, I much more prefer Donald Duck, the underdog, the jerk with a heart of gold, the guy who tries to do the good thing and raise three nephews at the same time. Compared to Mickey, Donald is a deeply flawed character, but you feel more sympathy for him and his toils than you do with the omniscient mouse.

As for doing what's right... well, I remember a DCAU episode where Batman knocks down a small-time mook only to find the mook's son watching by, terrified and not understanding why Batman is punching his daddy's kidneys (the kid of course not knowing his dad's a mook). Batman leaves the scene, leaving the guy alone. At the end of the episode we learn that the mook is no longer a mook, but has gotten a job at Wayne Corp. Not a high-status job, but enough to keep him on the straight and narrow to raise his son. Like Robin said in that episode "Well what do you know, Bruce Wayne has a heart after all". Personally I like that example of human kindness much more than anything Supes has done (to my knowledge); that despite his darker methods and willingness to beat up people for information, Batman/Bruce is still a kind man inside.

But this is all a matter of taste, of course. Just wanted to give you my €0.02 in this quite interesting discussion.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

All right, one last argument to throw at Dave. You'd said how you prefered Superman the way he was before. But, to be honest, every superhero, including Superman, have evolved from their original characters.

Superman, for example, was created in some ways in response to the lack of worker's rights and labour laws. He'd fight for the downtrodden, etc. But after the war, he became something bigger. Because of how well he was featured during WWII, he became something of an American icon, so his image was cleaned up a bit. Of course, it didn't help that sometime after that, the Comic Code Authority was put in place and they couldn't tell the same kind of stories anymore. So, being the instigator of superheroes, he became the white-bread, clean-cut dude we all know, now. He represented that American wholesomeness being advertised. Baseball, apple pie and Superman.

But he's not the only one. Batman wore purple gloves and shot people in his first appearance. Shot them dead. With a gun. Yet now, it's been stated that he doesn't like guns at all for what they represent with his parents. And Bats was campy for the longest time, too. It's where the Adam West Batman show got its inspiration. It wasn't until Dennis O'Neil wrote him as a James Bond-like character that he became cool again and then a little later with Frank Miller, who made Bats into the dark, brooding dude we know today.

Spidey has mostly changed, but he's evolved, too. He was only in High School in the comics for the first...I think 70 issues or so, possibly a lot less. If anyone is written differently from the way they used to be, it's Spidey. He used to beat his villains with brains and science. He was a quick witted kid who didn't have the confidence until he put on the mask. These days, the comics are making him the "loveable loser" who still lives with his aunt and can't get anything good in his life. There's been some great attempts to evolve him, too, like putting him back in school...as a High School science teacher. But that was all done away with.

So yeah, I wouldn't say that Superman changing is different from any other superhero. He's just evolved.

 

[Jiarn]

I've always subscribed to the theory that what makes Superman "vulernable" is not himself, but those he cares about (Lois, Lana, Metropolis). Which makes him even more subseptible to danger and intrigue than almost any superhero.

As for how he feels about himself? Depends on the writer at this point. Some have him refer to himself as Kal-El, others have him call himself Clark. It's more for the interpretation of the readers/fans at this point. I think he has solid grip on both.

 

[Biannoshufu]

the whole appeal to me of superman isnt that he's an unbeatable god like creature, but rather that he's an unbeatable god like creature that still can't save everyone, and still has to deal with the consequences of his actions, when EVERYONE expects him not only to be good, but also perfect.

 

[Gusto]

the whole appeal to me of superman isnt that he's an unbeatable god like creature, but rather that he's an unbeatable god like creature that still can't save everyone, and still has to deal with the consequences of his actions, when EVERYONE expects him not only to be good, but also perfect.

Yes. This please.

It's what made me enjoy Season 2 of JLU and the Doomsday animated movie so damn much.

 

[KCWM]

It's a little off center of subject, but the reason I liked Superman Returns so much was that I interpreted it as being more about WHO Superman was and his struggle with his human life than it was about this superbeing that can do all. Yeah, there were superhero moments. Now, the delivery and the execution of that idea wasn't always on, but I blame that more on Brian Singer than I do on the portrayal of Supes.

TNG's posts were interesting to read and I happen to agree with pretty much all of what he posted.

 

[Hailey Knight]

the whole appeal to me of superman isnt that he's an unbeatable god like creature, but rather that he's an unbeatable god like creature that still can't save everyone, and still has to deal with the consequences of his actions, when EVERYONE expects him not only to be good, but also perfect.

Entirely this.

And as for who he "really" is, people need to consider that there are really two Clarks. There's Smallville Clark, Superman, and Metropolis Clark. The last one is an invention, but he's just as much Kal-El as he is the farmboy from Smallville.