Superman's Fundamentals: A Discussion

[Kuwagaton]

I dunno, I watched every season, every episode of Smallville waiting for Clark to wear the costume and become Superman. I know I'm not the only one. And Lois Lane was in Smallville in the later seasons and she was the main love interest. I can't think of an adaptation where Lois wasn't the love interest if not a main co-star.

The one thing about Smallville that interests me is the context of this thread. It's a very popular and liked show, easily the largest amount of Superman content outside of the comics but... is that Superman? How exactly? They never ever call him that. That's like calling Gotham a show about Batman.

[Yoda]

The one thing about Smallville that interests me is the context of this thread. It's a very popular and liked show, easily the largest amount of Superman content outside of the comics but... is that Superman? How exactly? They never ever call him that. That's like calling Gotham a show about Batman.

It's a drawn out origin of Superman, that by the later seasons ultimately incorporated almost all of the fundamental elements of the character except flying and the suit (excluding the last episode). I never liked the "Blur" aspect of it, but I think the later seasons do a pretty solid job of showing the foundations of the Superman character.

I don't watch Gotham, but they are building to Batman in that show as well are they not. To the point where they are incorporating a proto-Batsuit this season.

[The World]

Other than Dark Knight Returns, where do you get the idea that people want Superman to be an unquestioning agent of the state?

That's the general tone and attitude I've been perceiving as of late. It was a recurring notion in the "How would you have rebooted Superman in 1986". I'm guessing they mean along the lines of Raegan asking Superman to take a hike in the Legends storyline and Superman obliges him. Frankly as someone who was popularized through his dedication to the common man and as a champion for the little guy it's backwards for him to be at the behest of the most powerful. It's backwards and makes him come off as weak willed and subservient.

It was a belief that had started to die towards the end of the of the Post-Crisis Era in the late aughts and in the beginning of the N52, possibly because the old Siegel&Shuster classics were coming back into the light after having been pushed into the darkness for so long. But I think most likely following the financial crash of the late 2000's and the general scrutiny of the Iraq War people just started to however briefly wonder why someone like Superman with all his power would be a loyalist to the word of law even if what it was doing was wrong. Frankly I could do without the loyalist stuff, sends a bad message to kids not to think for yourself. Optimism and skepticism imo aren't really enemies but neighbors and it does good for a Superman to stress the importance of having both.

[The World]

Look, Superman being some kind of vigilante who wanted to change the world by sheer force works better when he's at the Siegal/Shuster power-levels. He can then topple a slum-building or threaten corrupt politicians all he wants. But when he literally has the power to take over the world and remake it in his image, then you kinda need him to be a defender of the status quo on some level. Its either that or have him be a benevolent dictator.

As far as I've been able to tell Superman has pretty much all had the potential to become a dictator. Even at his early S&S levels he was still stronger than anyone else on the planet and generally beyond anything regular people could throw at him. What I don't really get about modern thinking is why people think Superman has any desire to do something as over the top as taking over the planet or something along those lines. I remember reading something on scans daily many years ago where someone had a similar fear about Superman getting involved in stuff like wars fearing that it would put him on a stone throw away from conquering nations even thought there is a massive gulf between the two concepts.

It feels like something about Superman on the conceptual level puts people on edge and they kind of over correct by having him do as little as possible.

Its why all the discussions about Superman's politics ultimately hit a roadblock. Superman ultimately can't be a political activist or any sort, because his powers pretty much would make him a tyrant. Also, due to his powers, his perception of humanity and of the 'big picture' would kinda render human politics as irrelevant to him. He knows that humanity is not perfect and that they need to find their own way. All he can do is save them from destruction, help out wherever he can and generally act as a symbol of hope.

This is why the modern attempts to humanize Superman have all been so meaningless. All of this farmer stuff and Superman being a mask means nothing when his views towards the world are so detached. It's at odds with the energy that created him and puts him in a situation where he comes off as lackadaisical and reserved towards the important work. It's why Hoechlin!Supes completely discredited himself when he said he wasn't able to make the kind of sacrifices Supergirl was. Superman use to be amongst the most dedicated of Superheroes but his fire has slowly died out over the years and that thinking is part of the problem.

I never gave this much thought before, but I guess this is the reason why the majority of 'vigilante' heroes tend to be normal humans, while the 'superheroes' tend to be, well, super-powered. Batman working outside the law, intimidating and beating up criminals and taking on corrupt cops and officials doesn't exactly destabilize the world because, at the end of the day, he's a normal human being who has his limits. Green Arrow being a kind of left-wing social activist doesn't make him a left-wing tyrant because he's ultimately just one highly skilled fighter who can make a difference without taking over the world. If the likes of Superman and Wonder Woman however set about imposing their worldviews on humanity and using their powers to do so, tyranny would be the logical next step.

The definition of tyrant I'm looking at right now focuses largely on levels of cruelty and oppression not power and again I don't really get the slippery slope concept that Superman is subjected to but people like Green Arrow and Batman aren't. Peoples froth at the mouth over the concept of Batman being able to take down anyone and they also want him to not have to answer to anyone either. The tyrant thing feels like a fear levied at Superman more because of his outsider status than powerlevels.

[Kuwagaton]

It's a drawn out origin of Superman, that by the later seasons ultimately incorporated almost all of the fundamental elements of the character except flying and the suit (excluding the last episode). I never liked the "Blur" aspect of it, but I think the later seasons do a pretty solid job of showing the foundations of the Superman character.

I don't watch Gotham, but they are building to Batman in that show as well are they not. To the point where they are incorporating a proto-Batsuit this season.

Well, for one thing it's a drawn out origin in hindsight. That show ran for a really long time and it's not as if many of those things were clear on how they would wrap up for the end. For some years you'd have been straight up watching a show about a guy who wasn't called Superman and didn't have the same Clark relationships as the comic character. Of course it's all well within the copyright and I don't mean to dismiss that show at all (I've only seen maybe six episodes) but that has to be the most elaborate departure from what the comics depict in the history of the character.

That's the general tone and attitude I've been perceiving as of late. It was a recurring notion in the "How would you have rebooted Superman in 1986". I'm guessing they mean along the lines of Raegan asking Superman to take a hike in the Legends storyline and Superman obliges him. Frankly as someone who was popularized through his dedication to the common man and as a champion for the little guy it's backwards for him to be at the behest of the most powerful. It's backwards and makes him come off as weak willed and subservient.

The common man to whom he was dedicated and the little guy to whom he was champion both disappeared before the 60s. Though only if you assert that saving the planet does not include saving the little guy. Superman grew in magnitude and worked on a different scale. Really, you kind of would think the other heroes should save more regular people than he does even with super speed, because he also has to deal with tasks that only he can clear. All the people who can't lift a volcano should go find something to do within their means.

bat39 had a good point, that people get afraid because of Superman having true power when push comes to shove. We see so many (mostly imaginary) stories where Superman becomes president or rules the world, and there are dozens of ways he can take a throne. Batman, what? Will fly over the White House in his batplane and toss money, or charge in swinging batarangs and get shot. The only ones who can entertain that thought are the ones who realize to take over means butting heads with Superman. The story itself does't mince words on his.... Legend



This is just before Darkseid gets involved with Superman directly and gets swatted down for his trouble.

If we're talking fundamentals, I think recognizing that Superman's restraint or lack thereof must come from "within" when he acts and putting others before himself are up there. When do those not define his position in a story? Superman can disagree with the president and let him know, but still be responsible. Like if other superheroes are literally being put in the hospital by the riots of a public backlash. If Superman went from swaying around cops in the 40s to attending missions for Kennedy (I don't see why Superman would be defiant in a rather objective ethical situation, not serving Reagan specifically in a situation unrelated to any politics if they even disagree on politics) I don't see why he would be compelled to stoke the riots. Instead of getting impatient or insecure and playing from his own emotional response to getting an order, he waited until he knew it was clearly time do what needed doing.

To be altruistic it requires one to be humble, and since Superman was drawn up he's been a character who went around all day righting wrong for others with no charge. For all he might say while on the job, that's pretty humble.

[Coal Tiger]

You watched 217 episodes, It is fair to say while wanting to see it Superman suit is not a deal breaker for you.


Also yes Lois Lane is always part of the mythos,But You can deemphasize her role. There seems to be misunderstanding I expect Metropolis,Daily Planet,Lois Lane as love interest,Lex Luthor to be a part of the mythos. BUT after you cover them you can move on do different things. Basically they can be Chapter 1, But Chapter 2 goes into a different direction.

It's a story that will never end. There are no chapters.

[Ascended]

The definition of tyrant I'm looking at right now focuses largely on levels of cruelty and oppression not power and again I don't really get the slippery slope concept that Superman is subjected to but people like Green Arrow and Batman aren't. Peoples froth at the mouth over the concept of Batman being able to take down anyone and they also want him to not have to answer to anyone either. The tyrant thing feels like a fear levied at Superman more because of his outsider status than powerlevels.

Really? I've never gotten the impression it's because Superman isn't "one of us." If anything, a lot of people seem too fond of the notion that Clark is just like us (the helpful farmboy mentality).

No, I think the friction is all about power levels. Or rather, it's about capability. Ollie or Bruce decide to force their opinions on everyone and go all "benevolent dictator" and they're not really going to get far. Even Bruce lacks the resources to enforce his will on the world. But Clark? Clark could do it. He did it during the Dominus era, he did it in Injustice, etc. He's capable of doing it whether people go along with the idea of not, but he's Superman, so a whole lot of people are going to totally support him. He's Superman, if he says this is for the best, people are going to believe him.

Now, you know I agree that Clark needs that Golden Age social crusader swagger. I am all about that. But people often think he can't push his politics because there's no one who can push back.

[Jon Clark]

Really? I've never gotten the impression it's because Superman isn't "one of us." If anything, a lot of people seem too fond of the notion that Clark is just like us (the helpful farmboy mentality).

No, I think the friction is all about power levels. Or rather, it's about capability. Ollie or Bruce decide to force their opinions on everyone and go all "benevolent dictator" and they're not really going to get far. Even Bruce lacks the resources to enforce his will on the world. But Clark? Clark could do it. He did it during the Dominus era, he did it in Injustice, etc. He's capable of doing it whether people go along with the idea of not, but he's Superman, so a whole lot of people are going to totally support him. He's Superman, if he says this is for the best, people are going to believe him.

Now, you know I agree that Clark needs that Golden Age social crusader swagger. I am all about that. But people often think he can't push his politics because there's no one who can push back.

The other issue is that people tend to support benevolent dictator ideas as long as they agree with the dictator. Superman using his X-ray vision to spot that gunman heading for the school is fine even if we'd have issue with Superman doing body scans to check we aren't smuggling candy into the movies. Same with Superman actively listening for cries of "Help" which are applauded although if we found that he was doing the same thing searching for anti-Trump speech we might be upset.


Without getting into which side of these issues you support, ask yourself if you'd still support Superman taking an activist role on abortion, marriage equality or immigration if he came down on the opposite side of the debate from you? Not why he'd support your side, but if for some reason his conscience actually makes him believe you are wrong.

[Ascended]

Without getting into which side of these issues you support, ask yourself if you'd still support Superman taking an activist role on abortion, marriage equality or immigration if he came down on the opposite side of the debate from you? Not why he'd support your side, but if for some reason his conscience actually makes him believe you are wrong.

I actually think Clark does have at least a few opinions that I don't share. I know everyone imprints what they want on their perceptions but I've never been bothered by the idea that a make believe character might not think the same way I do.

Of course, the other side of that problem is that everything has become a political issue. Clark can't stop a corrupt businessman because he's suddenly some sort of "crazy liberal" trying to attack free markets. Clark can't find a home for another lost alien who escaped the death of his race without it being commentary on immigration. A lot of the things that "everyone" would have agreed on a few years ago (corrupt businessmen should be stopped) is now filtered through a partisan bias.

[Jon Clark]

I actually think Clark does have at least a few opinions that I don't share. I know everyone imprints what they want on their perceptions but I've never been bothered by the idea that a make believe character might not think the same way I do.

Right, but it's more than his having a different opinion. I'm trying to raise the issue of whether if his opinion is different but he takes super-action to support his opinion whether all those people pushing for Superman to buck the status quo still think it's as good an idea.

If Superman and you both think smoking is bad, then hey, you have no issue with Superman taking action against Big Tobacco. But if you oppose smoking and Superman has an attitude of "it's your choice", do you still feel he should buck the system by ,say, protecting people smuggling cigarettes. Again not asking for you to defend anti-smoking, just picking a random idea where Superman acting against popular opinion might illustrate why his acting in the law as opposed to what he feels is right might make sense.

[Netherman14]

This is why the modern attempts to humanize Superman have all been so meaningless. All of this farmer stuff and Superman being a mask means nothing when his views towards the world are so detached. It's at odds with the energy that created him and puts him in a situation where he comes off as lackadaisical and reserved towards the important work. It's why Hoechlin!Supes completely discredited himself when he said he wasn't able to make the kind of sacrifices Supergirl was. Superman use to be amongst the most dedicated of Superheroes but his fire has slowly died out over the years and that thinking is part of the problem.

I largely still agree, that Superman doesn't need special focus on being humanized considering that he grew up raised by parents who are humans like us which is all the grounding he needs. however, I'd argue that the only time that humanizing Superman truly didn't work is when John Byrne did it in 1986 with his reinvention of the character, The Man of Steel (sharing a title with the Bendis 2018 mini-series of the same name). and that's because he radically changed the character as a conscious mandate from above to differentiate Superman from his Pre-Crisis incarnation, so he thinks of himself as being human with Clark Kent as the real identity (which is not a bad idea by itself). he rejects Krypton and the fact he's an alien as nothing more than a curious possibility of an alternate life, and he apparently loses...a lot... now this is probably going to surprise Superlad (and I wouldn't blame you, considering last time we talked about said book I said I didn't like it regardless of whether I explained my reasons ultimately or not), but an example of Clark Kent being the real identity with Superman being a pair of tights that actually works is 2016's American Alien. and that's because it still lets believe you that Clark Kent can convincingly become Superman, that he still possesses those ideals and beliefs that other incarnations of the character do and that he still wants to help people because he still truly is that nice. not because he's afraid of a mob that touched him.

In regards to Tyler's Earth-38 Superman, he sucks because frankly he just isn't well written. and his fears aren't the type of fears that fit Superman as a character, also, he just wouldn't be able to make the hard choices other Clark Kents/Kal-Els/Supermen can and do. hell, Donnerverse Superman is frankly a horrible selfish person who only cares about himself, and yet. when he has to, when it's time to make a choice. he still unhappily lets Lois die because there are innocent people who can die at the hands of Luthor due to his missile.

[Ascended]

If Superman and you both think smoking is bad, then hey, you have no issue with Superman taking action against Big Tobacco. But if you oppose smoking and Superman has an attitude of "it's your choice", do you still feel he should buck the system by ,say, protecting people smuggling cigarettes. Again not asking for you to defend anti-smoking, just picking a random idea where Superman acting against popular opinion might illustrate why his acting in the law as opposed to what he feels is right might make sense.

I'd take issue with Clark protecting smugglers, unless there was a pretty good explanation/story for why he's protecting them. But protecting smokers/Big Tobacco? I'm no fan of the B-T companies but if it made sense for Clark's character.....whatever. Like, I'd expect Nick Fury or Wolverine to protect cuban cigars, yknow? :P

I get your point of course, and this is why we've got such apolitical characters in comics (with one or two exceptions, like Ollie). DC is afraid of pissing people off and alienating readers. And Superman should be for everyone, so I'm in no rush to see him acting on opinions that will make people feel like he's "against" them.

However, where's the fun in a character so vanilla he's not offensive to anyone at all?

So, let me throw a hypothetical at you, just for fun (because I really dont disagree with what you're saying).

At one point, Superman famously took on the KKK. As you know, that had a measurable impact on recruitment and the klan took a hit (go Clark!). And this was in an age where racism was more accepted, tolerated, and was closer to the "norm." So that was Clark doing exactly what we're talking about; taking a socio-political action at the risk of a loss of readership and revenue. Was that the right thing to do? I think we'd all agree that it was, right? But standing up against the klan back then wouldn't be that different from taking a stance on many topics today. So if it was the right thing to do back then, why is it not the right thing to do now?

[Jon Clark]

I'd take issue with Clark protecting smugglers, unless there was a pretty good explanation/story for why he's protecting them. But protecting smokers/Big Tobacco? I'm no fan of the B-T companies but if it made sense for Clark's character.....whatever. Like, I'd expect Nick Fury or Wolverine to protect cuban cigars, yknow? :P

I get your point of course, and this is why we've got such apolitical characters in comics (with one or two exceptions, like Ollie). DC is afraid of pissing people off and alienating readers. And Superman should be for everyone, so I'm in no rush to see him acting on opinions that will make people feel like he's "against" them.

However, where's the fun in a character so vanilla he's not offensive to anyone at all?

Actually I was trying for a similar but different point. Not about the fictional DC character, but about what a real life super powerful activist would be like and why it might be a bad thing.

I'm saying that a lot of people seem to want a Superman who marches into a business, grabs the owner by the throat and explains that "You are going to pay these people a decent wage". To them Superman is fighting for the little guy there and his aim is true so who cares about whether it is legal. To them Superman's morals would be guiding him to do the right thing rather supporting the current system.

I was asking if their view of an activist Superman who puts his moral beliefs above the law would still apply if the cause Superman was fighting for wasn't one they believed in. Not if they would read the character or keep buying the book but if they would still support the view that Superman should follow his own moral compass rather than the standards of society.

So, let me throw a hypothetical at you, just for fun (because I really dont disagree with what you're saying).

At one point, Superman famously took on the KKK. As you know, that had a measurable impact on recruitment and the klan took a hit (go Clark!). And this was in an age where racism was more accepted, tolerated, and was closer to the "norm." So that was Clark doing exactly what we're talking about; taking a socio-political action at the risk of a loss of readership and revenue. Was that the right thing to do? I think we'd all agree that it was, right? But standing up against the klan back then wouldn't be that different from taking a stance on many topics today. So if it was the right thing to do back then, why is it not the right thing to do now?

Of course, in 2016, there is no question that he did the right thing. We've had 70 years of social change in that direction and Superman only got more popular since then.

But you'll note that despite scoring one for racial equality there Superman and the JLA kept pretty quiet during the Civil Rights movement. You didn't see Superman (or Clark) marching with Doctor King, nor did you see Superman (intervening in the riots on either side). I suspect that people who see Superman as a government stooge would have expected Superman to be shown standing with Bull Connor in support of law enforcement.

Now ask yourself in a time when Captain Kirk kissing Lt Uhura would have network affiliates upset, what would have happened if DC had decided to publish a Superman story where Superman intervened in support of Civil Rights? I suspect that might have hurt DC Comics ever getting on southern newsstands again. Might have made the 1950's and Frederick Wertham look like the good 'ol days in comparison,

[Kuwagaton]

Because radio is lost to me (I guess you can still listen to that old show somewhere, but it's still pretty removed from my generation) I have to wonder what made it so different. The comics were clearly for kids and so were the cartoons and likely the serials, but what about the radio? How was the KKK a more appropriate subject in that medium, and did it also have anything to do with Superman being a man from Krypton instead of a baby?

The later generations... there would have to be some fear of shaking the beehive because that's business. But between Curious Black and Superman's "Rap" to readers, I have to imagine there were just some well meaning people who didn't quite get how to approach something that seemed to be more layered than the one sided conflict of the KKK.

[bat39]

The one thing about Smallville that interests me is the context of this thread. It's a very popular and liked show, easily the largest amount of Superman content outside of the comics but... is that Superman? How exactly? They never ever call him that. That's like calling Gotham a show about Batman.

It does seem that Smallville was one of the forerunners of a contemporary trend...of having a movie or TV show spin-off based on a character without actually featuring that character!

You have the Fantastic Beast movies which are basically Harry Potter movies without Harry Potter. A Jason Bourne TV show coming up that doesn't actually feature Jason Bourne (they first tried this with a film back in 2012). An X-men TV show (The Gifted) which doesn't feature any big-name X-men characters. Sony's spin-off Spider-Man franchise that probably won't feature Peter Parker himself.

And of course, there's Krypton, Gotham and the upcoming Metropolis and Pennyworth series!

Does make you wonder about all the arguments regarding 'fundamentals' of a character/franchise...

Right, but it's more than his having a different opinion. I'm trying to raise the issue of whether if his opinion is different but he takes super-action to support his opinion whether all those people pushing for Superman to buck the status quo still think it's as good an idea.

If Superman and you both think smoking is bad, then hey, you have no issue with Superman taking action against Big Tobacco. But if you oppose smoking and Superman has an attitude of "it's your choice", do you still feel he should buck the system by ,say, protecting people smuggling cigarettes. Again not asking for you to defend anti-smoking, just picking a random idea where Superman acting against popular opinion might illustrate why his acting in the law as opposed to what he feels is right might make sense.

Your arguments are bang-on and exactly what I meant!

I suppose people would support Superman being a tyrant...as long as he's a tyrant for their side! But Superman, as a character, isn't interested in being a tyrant for anyone. Superman considers all of humanity to be under his protection - irrespective of race, gender or socio-economic position.