View Poll Results: Which of the following "fundamentals" cannot be altered at all in your opinion?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Superman's costume must always have trunks, no mask and no gloves.

    35 33.02%
  • Superman must always end up with Lois Lane. He can romance other women but Lois is endgame.

    69 65.09%
  • Superman's workplace is the Planet and he is a journalist. He cannot, say, be a doctor instead.

    72 67.92%
  • Kryptonians must remain extinct save for a few. Things such as New Krypton are temporary at best.

    69 65.09%
  • Superman's powerset is permanent and mostly immutable. He cannot, say, develop psychic powers.

    54 50.94%
  • Superman's home is ultimately Metropolis. He cannot, say, leave Metropolis and go live in Sydney.

    73 68.87%
  • Superman must have a secret identity. He can't permanently ditch it and openly live as Superman.

    81 76.42%
  • Lex Luthor must always be Superman's arch-enemy. He cannot be permanently redeemed.

    45 42.45%
  • The Kents must stay alive or at least one of them must live.

    23 21.70%
  • The Daily Planet crew is Superman's core supporting cast, they cannot be replaced or sidelined.

    65 61.32%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 136
  1. #61
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Okay, I revised my opinion and finally voted based on what I think has to be there. In every case, I'm okay with temporary changes, even ones that last a couple of years. But I think things have to eventually come home.

    Although a restart can involve Superman "playing the field" and although that can be dragged out for quite a while, I think Lois Lane is the endgame. It is such a strong expectation that anything else makes him look superficial. This is the woman he loves.

    I would have gone with "Superman's workplace is the Planet and he is a journalist. He cannot, say, be a doctor instead" but it's more a partially agree/ partially disagree. I think he needs to be a journalist in some form. Could be a reporter, a newspaper writer, a novelist, a television reporter. In this day and age with newspapers mostly hanging on by a thread, a blog could be his venue. But a reporter in some form. I don't think it absolutely has to be the Daily Planet.

    I think things like New Krypton should be temporary but I haven't really followed that. So as long as Kryptonians aren't constantly showing up is what I'm saying.

    I really think Superman's power set is locked in at this point. I don't have any problem with him developing temporary powers but he's already got a lot of powers. I think they could probably keep the Super Breath but lose the specific Super Cold Breath and only the most extreme fans would notice or care. But the early days when he can suddenly alter his appearance or where they can just make up a power and pretend he always had it are long gone. Again, I totally get temporary shakeups to boost sales and I'm fine with that. I'm talking about permanent stuff.

    I think that, indeed, Metropolis is his home. But that's just a metaphor for a big city. If he takes an assignment in Australia, that's fine. Have him live there for a couple of years.

    I think the secret identity is locked in. Rather than "Is he Superman or is he Clark?" "Is he Kryptonian or human psychologically?" the answer is yes. He is Superman and Clark, he considers both heritages equally important. But I think he loses too much by everyone knowing Clark is Superman or by living 24/ 7 as Superman.

    I do not think Lex Luthor has to stay forever Superman's main opponent. In fact, he's so overused that I got sick of it, especially Post-Crisis. It was okay in the Silver Age days of "Woo ha ha. Here's my latest scheme that will inevitably fail". But in the Post-Crisis era when he was a fairly realistic and despicable individual who murdered his own parents and pulled scheme after scheme and got away with it, it was just annoying and tiresome. Even temporary redemptions just feel fake given his history.

    I think Lois, Jimmy and Perry should be his main supporting cast. Sidelining them is fine as a temporary measure.
    Power with Girl is better.

  2. #62
    Master Hero Vladimir
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, México
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Wow, I guess we Superman fans are a hard bunch to please.

  3. #63
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    Poll was still open..

    Voted yes on all except the first one.

  4. #64
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HeroVladimir93 View Post
    Wow, I guess we Superman fans are a hard bunch to please.

    Ya think??

    The fanboy wars are unending.. sometimes I wonder why that is.. Maybe all the different versions of the character polarize the fandom when some think their fave version is "the One"...


    Does that happen with Batman and Wonder Woman fandoms? I haven't noticed as much as with Superman's...
    Last edited by stargazer01; 11-09-2018 at 09:32 AM.

  5. #65
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,376

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargazer01 View Post
    Ya think??

    The fanboy wars are unending.. sometimes I wonder why that is.. Maybe all the different versions of the character polarize the fandom when some think their fave version is "the One"...


    Does that happen with Batman and Wonder Woman fandoms? I haven't noticed as much as with Superman's...
    Oh yes, you better believe it. WW is even more fragmented due to the constant reboots she suffers from. Bats is less fragmented than Supes and WW, but you’ve still got people arguing about the role of the Batfamily, whether Bruce is insane or not, how much of a jerk can he be before he becomes unlikable, etc, etc.

  6. #66
    Fantastic Member babybats's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    272

    Default

    I picked almost all of them lol but since I voted for the two least popular options I'll explain my stance on them:

    1) The trunks.

    I was always ambivalent towards the trunks. But earlier today I watched an interview where Gleason said that the trunks serve an important purpose: modesty. This is Superman at his finest. A family man. Considerate to a fault. Thinking of the people first. Protecting us from his superbulge. (And, after all, his Ma made this costume for him, she's not going to send her boy out in a skin-tight leotard without sensible shorts. With pockets, so he doesn't lose his keys.)

    2) The Kents must live.

    Obviously they can't live forever, but I think they should at least be a vital source of family and support for Clark before and after he's become Superman (and if they die somewhere along the line, that's life). I think so much of what makes Superman strong is that backbone of love and happiness the Kents provide. The knowledge that, as alien as he is, he's not really alone. I think that separates him from other orphaned superheroes, who were forced to grow up too soon, or have the ghosts of their pasts haunting them until they become a hero. Superman is an orphan, but he still has parents, and it's not tragedy that turns him into a hero, but the hope and strength they encourage within him. (Also, I think the Kents are important members of the Supercast on their own, just like the DP crew and Lois.)

    I'd also add that I do think being a farmboy from Smallville, Kansas is also fundamental. Not in a 'Superman must reflect American values and culture' sort of way. But in a 'this is the lens through which he saw the world growing up, this textures his worldview.' And I think it's important because Superman, the guy who stands above the world as a god, can be from anywhere. But Clark Kent has roots in a specific place on Earth. To have a home, to have an Earthly identity, grounds him and connects him to humanity in a fundamental way.

  7. #67
    Took me a while, I'm back Netherman14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Metropolis, the City of Tomorrow.
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Here are what I think are the core fundamental elements of Superman that truly matter:

    1) Born biologically on Krypton to Jor-El and Lara-El (nee Lor-Van) as Kal-El, no Birthing matrix here.

    2) Sent from Krypton to Earth as a baby, where he's found by loving adoptive parents who rename him Clark Kent.

    3) Parents die when he's a young adult (generally 18), due to fatal car crash.

    4) Clark moves to Metropolis as an adult, where he becomes Superman.

    5) His arch-enemy is Lex Luthor, a self-made rich man who rose from nothing.

    Any other elements can be scrapped with no damage done to the franchise, including Daily Star. Daily Planet, Lois Lane. Perry White etc. yes, I am well aware this is very controversial.
    Pull-List:

    DC: Batman: Damned, The Green Lantern. Young Justice. Wonder Twins

    Boom!: Ronin Samurai.

  8. #68
    Astonishing Member stargazer01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Oh yes, you better believe it. WW is even more fragmented due to the constant reboots she suffers from. Bats is less fragmented than Supes and WW, but you’ve still got people arguing about the role of the Batfamily, whether Bruce is insane or not, how much of a jerk can he be before he becomes unlikable, etc, etc.
    I see fans arguing about WW's birth origin quite a bit. And if she is a Goddess or half Goddess and how powerful she should be and if she should fly.

  9. #69
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Its interesting that I can find a SINGLE one of the options as being totally non-negotiable when it comes to Superman. I mean, yes, obviously I have my preferences, but there isn't a single one of these points that I think would violate the fundamentals of Superman if not adhered to.


    Superman's costume must always have trunks, no mask and no gloves.

    Well, the New 52 and early Rebirth era have already proven that the character is viable without the trunks. I agree about no mask, but I'm sure someone someday could come up with a glove design that works. So ultimately, the suit, while a contentious subject, isn't really the deal-breaker people think it is.

    Superman must always end up with Lois Lane. He can romance other women but Lois is endgame.

    Here's the thing though - throughout the Pre-Crisis era, particularly the Silver Age and Bronze Age, I have my doubts about whether Lois was really meant to be the 'endgame', at least for the then-mainstream Earth One Superman. And she wasn't really the endgame in the New 52 either. Superman doesn't cease to be Superman if Lois isn't around. The fans might miss her presence, but Superman fundamentally stays the same without her around.

    Superman's workplace is the Planet and he is a journalist. He cannot, say, be a doctor instead.

    Its already been proven that you can take Clark away from the Daily Planet without rendering the character unrecognizable. And while I can't really see Clark take up a radically different job, like a doctor, I could see him being a farmer if he's living in the countryside. Or actually, any other job if he's assuming another secret identity or if he's not living in Metropolis. And if he's not using a secret identity, then the job thing becomes moot.

    Kryptonians must remain extinct save for a few. Things such as New Krypton are temporary at best.

    Well, they will always stay temporary because 'Status Quo is God' is the mantra of comic-book franchises. But really, does having a lot of Kryptonians around somewhere fundamentally change the character of Superman? Back when the Bottle City of Kandor was a thing and the Phantom Zone was teeming with Kryptonian criminals (which I dunno, might currently still be the case), does that really not make Superman 'Superman' anymore? I doubt it.

    Superman's powerset is permanent and mostly immutable. He cannot, say, develop psychic powers.

    Superman developing new powers has been a time-honored tradition, most notably 'Superman Blue' and the recent solar flare power. So again, while it would be jarring, its not totally out of the realm of possibility. Making Superman 'super' in new ways doesn't change who he is.

    Superman's home is ultimately Metropolis. He cannot, say, leave Metropolis and go live in Sydney.

    Another change that would be jarring, but doesn't really change the character at his core. If Superman, say, lived in the Fortress and patrolled the entire world regularly, he would still be identifiable as Superman.

    Superman must have a secret identity. He can't permanently ditch it and openly live as Superman.

    Regardless of how people felt about 'Truth', Superman's identity being revealed can be done. He would still be Superman - you'd just be hard-pressed to find the 'Clark Kent' in him.

    Lex Luthor must always be Superman's arch-enemy. He cannot be permanently redeemed.

    'Status Quo is God' is about the only reason why Luthor can't be permanently reformed. During the periods of time when Luthor isn't a villain anymore, but an uneasy ally of Superman's, it doesn't really make Superman any less recognizable as Superman.

    The Kents must stay alive or at least one of them must live.

    I'm in favor of them living, but you can't deny that the franchise worked just fine for the half-century they were dead.

    The Daily Planet crew is Superman's core supporting cast, they cannot be replaced or sidelined.

    Well, they have been replaced or sidelined on occassion so...not a deal-breaker.


    In essence what I'm saying is that you can have Superman as a hero with no secret identity and no job at the Daily Planet, all kinds of crazy new powers, a suit that does not include trunks, who is not involved with Lois Lane in any way and doesn't hang out with any Daily Planet staff; with Lex Luthor having reformed, a bunch of Kryptonians living on a colony somewhere nearby and frequently showing up on earth, and Jonathan and Martha Kent being dead; and he would still be recognizable as Superman. It may not be a popular version of the character, but it would still undeniably be a version of the character.

  10. #70
    Took me a while, I'm back Netherman14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Metropolis, the City of Tomorrow.
    Posts
    451

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    Its interesting that I can find a SINGLE one of the options as being totally non-negotiable when it comes to Superman. I mean, yes, obviously I have my preferences, but there isn't a single one of these points that I think would violate the fundamentals of Superman if not adhered to.


    Superman's costume must always have trunks, no mask and no gloves.

    Well, the New 52 and early Rebirth era have already proven that the character is viable without the trunks. I agree about no mask, but I'm sure someone someday could come up with a glove design that works. So ultimately, the suit, while a contentious subject, isn't really the deal-breaker people think it is.

    Superman must always end up with Lois Lane. He can romance other women but Lois is endgame.

    Here's the thing though - throughout the Pre-Crisis era, particularly the Silver Age and Bronze Age, I have my doubts about whether Lois was really meant to be the 'endgame', at least for the then-mainstream Earth One Superman. And she wasn't really the endgame in the New 52 either. Superman doesn't cease to be Superman if Lois isn't around. The fans might miss her presence, but Superman fundamentally stays the same without her around.

    Superman's workplace is the Planet and he is a journalist. He cannot, say, be a doctor instead.

    Its already been proven that you can take Clark away from the Daily Planet without rendering the character unrecognizable. And while I can't really see Clark take up a radically different job, like a doctor, I could see him being a farmer if he's living in the countryside. Or actually, any other job if he's assuming another secret identity or if he's not living in Metropolis. And if he's not using a secret identity, then the job thing becomes moot.

    Kryptonians must remain extinct save for a few. Things such as New Krypton are temporary at best.

    Well, they will always stay temporary because 'Status Quo is God' is the mantra of comic-book franchises. But really, does having a lot of Kryptonians around somewhere fundamentally change the character of Superman? Back when the Bottle City of Kandor was a thing and the Phantom Zone was teeming with Kryptonian criminals (which I dunno, might currently still be the case), does that really not make Superman 'Superman' anymore? I doubt it.

    Superman's powerset is permanent and mostly immutable. He cannot, say, develop psychic powers.

    Superman developing new powers has been a time-honored tradition, most notably 'Superman Blue' and the recent solar flare power. So again, while it would be jarring, its not totally out of the realm of possibility. Making Superman 'super' in new ways doesn't change who he is.

    Superman's home is ultimately Metropolis. He cannot, say, leave Metropolis and go live in Sydney.

    Another change that would be jarring, but doesn't really change the character at his core. If Superman, say, lived in the Fortress and patrolled the entire world regularly, he would still be identifiable as Superman.

    Superman must have a secret identity. He can't permanently ditch it and openly live as Superman.

    Regardless of how people felt about 'Truth', Superman's identity being revealed can be done. He would still be Superman - you'd just be hard-pressed to find the 'Clark Kent' in him.

    Lex Luthor must always be Superman's arch-enemy. He cannot be permanently redeemed.

    'Status Quo is God' is about the only reason why Luthor can't be permanently reformed. During the periods of time when Luthor isn't a villain anymore, but an uneasy ally of Superman's, it doesn't really make Superman any less recognizable as Superman.

    The Kents must stay alive or at least one of them must live.

    I'm in favor of them living, but you can't deny that the franchise worked just fine for the half-century they were dead.

    The Daily Planet crew is Superman's core supporting cast, they cannot be replaced or sidelined.

    Well, they have been replaced or sidelined on occassion so...not a deal-breaker.


    In essence what I'm saying is that you can have Superman as a hero with no secret identity and no job at the Daily Planet, all kinds of crazy new powers, a suit that does not include trunks, who is not involved with Lois Lane in any way and doesn't hang out with any Daily Planet staff; with Lex Luthor having reformed, a bunch of Kryptonians living on a colony somewhere nearby and frequently showing up on earth, and Jonathan and Martha Kent being dead; and he would still be recognizable as Superman. It may not be a popular version of the character, but it would still undeniably be a version of the character.
    I have to give you kudos, that is what I was trying to say. except put in a far better and more eloquent way.
    Pull-List:

    DC: Batman: Damned, The Green Lantern. Young Justice. Wonder Twins

    Boom!: Ronin Samurai.

  11. #71
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    In essence what I'm saying is that you can have Superman as a hero with no secret identity and no job at the Daily Planet, all kinds of crazy new powers, a suit that does not include trunks, who is not involved with Lois Lane in any way and doesn't hang out with any Daily Planet staff; with Lex Luthor having reformed, a bunch of Kryptonians living on a colony somewhere nearby and frequently showing up on earth, and Jonathan and Martha Kent being dead; and he would still be recognizable as Superman. It may not be a popular version of the character, but it would still undeniably be a version of the character.
    I don't know. This strikes me as being one of those bits where you have replaced every bristle and splinter but are trying to insist it is the exact same broom.

    If I have Kal-El whose main powers are mind control and illusion casting. He spends his down time raising chickens with his fellow Kryptonians in the city of Kandor on an island. And he battles criminals in a tuxedo with top hat. Is this Superman?

  12. #72
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    I don't know. This strikes me as being one of those bits where you have replaced every bristle and splinter but are trying to insist it is the exact same broom.

    If I have Kal-El whose main powers are mind control and illusion casting. He spends his down time raising chickens with his fellow Kryptonians in the city of Kandor on an island. And he battles criminals in a tuxedo with top hat. Is this Superman?
    Well, obviously if you flip things to the extreme, the character will be rendered unrecognizable. I suppose I was looking at it more from the point of view of the absence of those elements. What those elements will be replaced with, and how far the divergence goes, is another matter entirely.

    So no, a Kal-El whose main powers and mind control and illusion casting may not seem like Superman. But maybe if he gained mind control and telekinetic powers in addition to his usual power-set, it wouldn't fundamentally change the character. Also, the tuxedo and top hat is quiet extreme compared to, say, a suit without the trunks, an armored suit and/or Superman wearing a suit with a different color scheme but which still won't be mistaken for anything other than a Superman suit - the black-and-white costume that Superdad wore, and which Batman Beyond-era Superman wore, springs to mind.

    What interests me more is the point at which a character becomes a different broom. We may sit and argue all day long about the differences between the Golden Age Superman, Silver Age Superman, Byrne Superman, New 52 Superman, Earth 2 Superman, DCEU Superman, Donnerverse Superman etc. but apart from maybe a few extremists no one would deny that they are essentially the same character.

    But how far do you push it? What about Elseworlds? Is Red Son Superman still Superman? Perhaps...if you buy the conceit that its the same person in a totally different situation. What about Calvin Ellis? In his case, it's a lot clearer on one level - he's not Kal-El, he's a different person entirely. But isn't he Superman? Doesn't he arguably live up to the ideals of Superman, and how we usually perceive the character, more than the Red Son Superman does?

    When we talk about the character of Superman are we talking about the person, Kal-El/Clark Kent, or the heroic figure known as 'Superman'? I think most of the time, we think of it as being some nebulous combination of the two. Certainly, we tend to associate the name 'Superman' with Kal-El more strongly than we do 'Flash' with Barry Allen or even, for that matter, 'Batman' with Bruce Wayne.

    I think the question of the 'broom' is certainly a fascinating one, especially in a genre where characters are so often rebooted, reimagined or replaced.

  13. #73
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    Well, obviously if you flip things to the extreme, the character will be rendered unrecognizable. I suppose I was looking at it more from the point of view of the absence of those elements. What those elements will be replaced with, and how far the divergence goes, is another matter entirely.
    My concern is that for a lot of people the extent of the divergence is more negotiable than for others. I agree that many if not all of the changes you listed are possible without varying too far from "Superman". I'm just not sure if you pile change upon change if you don't automatically come up with something different enough to be a different character.

    I don't see the Byrne take on Superman's powers as being the same as Elliot Maggin's, for instance. Both characters are Superman in most other ways so 99% of the time, I could care less. And while I have a preference, I'm not going to say either one of them is "wrong" about how they think of the powers. However, if Maggin is writing a series set on New Krypton where there are no secret IDs and Byrne is writing a series set in Smallville where Clark and Superman are seen as two different people- then one starts feeling more "Superman-ish" than the other.

    It's why Peter David used the name Linda Danvers and a lot of other Silver Age concepts in a series that to me was Supergirl in name only, but which others identify as a solid take. And why on some level I have an innate fear that someone reading a post like yours will sell DC on a something I'd see as Superman in name only. The same type of minds that think making Mxyzptlk a Russian exchange student is just a little tweek, or that a self-confident African American character works better as Jimmy Olsen than a as a new person, or that that Superman's suit showing his internal organs works as a mainstream portrayal.

  14. #74
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    My concern is that for a lot of people the extent of the divergence is more negotiable than for others. I agree that many if not all of the changes you listed are possible without varying too far from "Superman". I'm just not sure if you pile change upon change if you don't automatically come up with something different enough to be a different character.

    I don't see the Byrne take on Superman's powers as being the same as Elliot Maggin's, for instance. Both characters are Superman in most other ways so 99% of the time, I could care less. And while I have a preference, I'm not going to say either one of them is "wrong" about how they think of the powers. However, if Maggin is writing a series set on New Krypton where there are no secret IDs and Byrne is writing a series set in Smallville where Clark and Superman are seen as two different people- then one starts feeling more "Superman-ish" than the other.

    It's why Peter David used the name Linda Danvers and a lot of other Silver Age concepts in a series that to me was Supergirl in name only, but which others identify as a solid take. And why on some level I have an innate fear that someone reading a post like yours will sell DC on a something I'd see as Superman in name only. The same type of minds that think making Mxyzptlk a Russian exchange student is just a little tweek, or that a self-confident African American character works better as Jimmy Olsen than a as a new person, or that that Superman's suit showing his internal organs works as a mainstream portrayal.
    I think a lot of this comes down to a certain malleability fans, and creators, have when it comes to characters of varying levels of 'iconicity'.

    Supergirl simply isn't as iconic a character as Superman. So after COIE, writers could reinvent her completely in ways they never could reinvent Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman. Of course, now, with Supergirl's vastly increased profile, the Kara Zor-El version is pretty much going to stick and I don't think the same kind of experimentation with the character would be possible anymore.

    A lot of fans of the CW 'Arrowverse' shows talk about how The Flash is more 'faithful' to the comics than Arrow. Well, the hard fact is that the Flash is one of DC's top brands after the Trinity so the showrunners would understandably be a bit more hesitant to reinvent the wheel completely there (though its not like they haven't taken liberties there). Whereas the Green Arrow, while an icon in his own right, simply never had the status of DC's major brands, and so the showrunners felt a lot freer to shake up the mythos and change some things substantially.

  15. #75
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Those are also just still very extreme. If you say "making Mxyzptlk a Russian exchange student," even though we're talking about a supporting character who isn't held to the same standard in marketing or fandom, that's not a type of change supported by the available options in the least. I get it is what that means is simply that there are limits to these things, but it's the unchanging principles that don't have a likelihood of tampering. You can't fairly expect Mxy to be a Russian exchange student by any upcoming revision, but you can expect Superman to do any single one of those things in the poll, as he has pulled off each one.

    The worst I could even say is that the ones I voted for will probably revert back to status quo time and again, but they can be frequently altered anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •