Superman's Fundamentals: A Discussion

[stargazer01]

Exactly! Taking off the glasses and opening the shirt is one of the most iconic images in pop culture. That represents Superman. The Daily Planet Globe is "Superman" to the general public. Lois Lane is "Superman's Girlfriend" to the general public. These are the fundamental elements of the character. You can tweak, modernize, or build off them, but without them you don't have "Superman" you have generic superhero.

Yup. The Superman shirt rip is so iconic and influential, even Spiderman, The Incredibles, Supergirl and many others have copied it. It would be a big mistake for the one who invented it, Superman, to lose it.

And Lois Lane is also an important part of his story. She's basically in all the live action movies and in all his shows I think.

[Yoda]

Yup. The Superman shirt rip is so iconic and influential, even Spiderman, The Incredibles, Supergirl and many others have copied it. It would be a big mistake for the one who invented it, Superman, to lose it.

And Lois Lane is also an important part of his story. She's basically in all the live action movies and in all his shows I think.

She wasn't initially in Smallville, but she eventually appeared and became a co-star. But every major media adaptation has included her because she is seen as an integral part of the mythos. You can tell Superman stories without her, but at a certain point everyone is going to wonder where she is.

[The World]

The fact that Superman fighting for the little guy isn't considered a fundamental anymore is part of the real tragedy of the character given that's the whole reason the character exist. What even is Superman's motivation in the modern world if not that. People want him to have some kind of unquestioning relationship with the governments of the Earth and to be on the side of law enforcement when its the strongest force after the military. Why is Superman fighting FOR the already powerful?

That's more important than anything in that list sans Superman coming from Krypton.

[Yoda]

The fact that Superman fighting for the little guy isn't considered a fundamental anymore is part of the real tragedy of the character given that's the whole reason the character exist. What even is Superman's motivation in the modern world if not that. People want him to have some kind of unquestioning relationship with the governments of the Earth and to be on the side of law enforcement when its the strongest force after the military. Why is Superman fighting FOR the already powerful?

That's more important than anything in that list sans Superman coming from Krypton.

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

[Killerbee911]

sorry but your comparison doesn't work because Supergirl is not Superman. People accept that she can live in another city and have other supporting characters because her story isn't iconic or nearly as established like Superman/Clark Kent's. For her, the only important thing is that she is Superman's cousin and that she arrived after he did.

The comparison works because they are telling Kryptonian survivor on Earth in a modernizing setting. Everything on the show is a test case for a Superman story without certain elementals could work. The show can easily swap out Kara and put in Clark keep moving along with no issue. Fanboys worship continuity but a lot stuff isn't necessary to telling a good story with a character. Robin Hood,King Arthur, Frankenstein, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes these are iconic characters which stories have been told in modern setting and recognized as those characters. A better way of asking the question is if Superman become public domain what do you need to keep to tell a good story. A lot of elements people find to be "untouchable" or "fundamental" are only that way because that is how the story was told to them. Someone adapting Superman to modern setting with no attachment to nostalgia aren't keep certain elements around because they don't work as well did in the past. Something like Metropolis and Daily Planet seem core but New York and New York Times would work just as well.

Superman a kind humble hero with no trunks working at New York Times in love triangle with Lana Lang and Diana Prince with his arch nemesis being General Zod with both parents dead is still Superman and clearly recognizable as Superman. Superman with trunks as dark emo superhero who kill villains in Metropolis married to Lois Lane with his two racist parents still alive and silly geeky tech guru Lex Luthor as main villain wouldn't feel like Superman and that has all the correct elements that the first one doesn't have in it.

[Jim Kelly]

Nobody seemed to get my OFFICE reference.

Actually, I think comic book readers are much more easy going when it comes to changing up the elements of a character. These days nothing is forever, so they know that these changes are just experimental, to see how far you can push an established character.

Whereas, the general public hasn't had the same experience and so certain things about Superman seem like they must always be so. And when those conditions are changed, the public gets confused. I have this problem with my relations, where they think there's an established mythology for the character that never changes--and they're flummoxed by things that contradict that state of affairs.

You see that when DC does something that's big enough to be covered by the major news outlets. When the public gets wind of these changes, they get their backs up and start screaming into the void. Whereas, comics readers are chill, because they've read hundreds of other stories that never caught the attention of the public.

[Yoda]

The comparison works because they are telling Kryptonian survivor on Earth in a modernizing setting. Everything on the show is a test case for a Superman story without certain elementals could work. The show can easily swap out Kara and put in Clark keep moving along with no issue. Fanboys worship continuity but a lot stuff isn't necessary to telling a good story with a character. Robin Hood,King Arthur, Frankenstein, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes these are iconic characters which stories have been told in modern setting and recognized as those characters. A better way of asking the question is if Superman become public domain what do you need to keep to tell a good story. A lot of elements people find to be "untouchable" or "fundamental" are only that way because that is how the story was told to them. Someone adapting Superman to modern setting with no attachment to nostalgia aren't keep certain elements around because they don't work as well did in the past. Something like Metropolis and Daily Planet seem core but New York and New York Times would work just as well.

Superman a kind humble hero with no trunks working at New York Times in love triangle with Lana Lang and Diana Prince with his arch nemesis being General Zod with both parents dead is still Superman and clearly recognizable as Superman. Superman with trunks as dark emo superhero who kill villains in Metropolis married to Lois Lane with his two racist parents still alive and silly geeky tech guru Lex Luthor as main villain wouldn't feel like Superman and that has all the correct elements that the first one doesn't have in it.

Sherlock is a great example. What do the three modern and successful adaptations all do? They keep all the essential and easily recognizable elements. Sherlock’s a private detective, working with his partner Watson, to solve crimes. And his arch nemesis is Moriarty. Two were sat in London. One the US. Two modern day. One period appropriate. They adapt, but don’t break, the formula.

And I don’t get why Lois Lane is so disposable to so many people. Your second example wouldn’t feel “right” to the majority of the public because again, she has been his love interest and partner in every mass media interpretation of the character ever. She’s Watson. If you plugged Lana or Diana into the story, they’d be seen as a Lois replacement. Could it work, sure. But it’s like replacing Watson with Greg the assistant.

[stargazer01]

Sherlock is a great example. What do the three modern and successful adaptations all do? They keep all the essential and easily recognizable elements. Sherlock’s a private detective, working with his partner Watson, to solve crimes. And his arch nemesis is Moriarty. Two were sat in London. One the US. Two modern day. One period appropriate. They adapt, but don’t break, the formula.

And I don’t get why Lois Lane is so disposable to so many people. Your second example wouldn’t feel “right” to the majority of the public because again, she has been his love interest and partner in every mass media interpretation of the character ever. She’s Watson. If you plugged Lana or Diana into the story, they’d be seen as a Lois replacement. Could it work, sure. But it’s like replacing Watson with Greg the assistant.

Agreed. Just like you can't take Alfred and Gotham away from from Batman, you can't take Lois, the Kents and Metropolis away from Superman forever. They are part of who he is and his story. it makes them unique.

[Jon Clark]

And I don’t get why Lois Lane is so disposable to so many people. Your second example wouldn’t feel “right” to the majority of the public because again, she has been his love interest and partner in every mass media interpretation of the character ever. She’s Watson. If you plugged Lana or Diana into the story, they’d be seen as a Lois replacement. Could it work, sure. But it’s like replacing Watson with Greg the assistant.

That's what the thread is all about. Some people see Lois as not part of the essential elements. Clark staying with his high-school sweetheart or entering an on-going relationship with a fellow superbeing is as valid to them as his falling for just another reporter even a superstar journalist. You can have Lana or Jimmy Olsen be the one who Superman rescues. You can have Perry White or Jimmy (or even Lex Luthor) be the one Clark is matching wits with about the dual ID. And Batman or Diana can be the one Superman has a playful "one-upping" relationship with. Other than nostalgia they feel is contributed by using Lois.

New and different are more attractive than tried and tested. For some people they'd rather see Superman is a new light rather than use the same characters and tropes that we've seen repeatedly over the last 80 years. He doesn't need to be a reporter (News papers are yesterday) or fight for the American way (too jingoisitic and besides 'Murrica Sucks!!!) or have a strict moral code (lethal force is always on the table, ends justify means) or even be better than Lex (Lex as a hero). AS long as the story is good, the character of Superman is just a cog to be fit into that story.

[Yoda]

That's what the thread is all about. Some people see Lois as not part of the essential elements. Clark staying with his high-school sweetheart or entering an on-going relationship with a fellow superbeing is as valid to them as his falling for just another reporter even a superstar journalist. You can have Lana or Jimmy Olsen be the one who Superman rescues. You can have Perry White or Jimmy (or even Lex Luthor) be the one Clark is matching wits with about the dual ID. And Batman or Diana can be the one Superman has a playful "one-upping" relationship with. Other than nostalgia they feel is contributed by using Lois.

New and different are more attractive than tried and tested. For some people they'd rather see Superman is a new light rather than use the same characters and tropes that we've seen repeatedly over the last 80 years. He doesn't need to be a reporter (News papers are yesterday) or fight for the American way (too jingoisitic and besides 'Murrica Sucks!!!) or have a strict moral code (lethal force is always on the table, ends justify means) or even be better than Lex (Lex as a hero). AS long as the story is good, the character of Superman is just a cog to be fit into that story.

I get that. But at a certain point once you strip away enough elements it stops being a “Superman” story and becomes a generic superhero. Yes, a story with all the elements in your second paragraph could be excellent. But it literally can and has been told with any number of other characters.

Separating Superman from the core elements that have defined his existence in every interpretation doesn’t work, for him more than many other characters, because at his core he is the archetype of the generic superhero.

[bat39]

The fact that Superman fighting for the little guy isn't considered a fundamental anymore is part of the real tragedy of the character given that's the whole reason the character exist. What even is Superman's motivation in the modern world if not that. People want him to have some kind of unquestioning relationship with the governments of the Earth and to be on the side of law enforcement when its the strongest force after the military. Why is Superman fighting FOR the already powerful?

That's more important than anything in that list sans Superman coming from Krypton.

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.

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.

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.

[Killerbee911]

Sherlock is a great example. What do the three modern and successful adaptations all do? They keep all the essential and easily recognizable elements. Sherlock’s a private detective, working with his partner Watson, to solve crimes. And his arch nemesis is Moriarty. Two were sat in London. One the US. Two modern day. One period appropriate. They adapt, but don’t break, the formula.

And I don’t get why Lois Lane is so disposable to so many people. Your second example wouldn’t feel “right” to the majority of the public because again, she has been his love interest and partner in every mass media interpretation of the character ever. She’s Watson. If you plugged Lana or Diana into the story, they’d be seen as a Lois replacement. Could it work, sure. But it’s like replacing Watson with Greg the assistant.

They adapted? recovering drug addict,Set in the US, Set in the Modern day, Asian female Watson doesn't break the formula ?

I get that. But at a certain point once you strip away enough elements it stops being a “Superman” story and becomes a generic superhero. Yes, a story with all the elements in your second paragraph could be excellent. But it literally can and has been told with any number of other characters.

Separating Superman from the core elements that have defined his existence in every interpretation doesn’t work, for him more than many other characters, because at his core he is the archetype of the generic superhero.

The things some people are calling core is just the way they were told the story, The same way kids who watch JL cartoon was told the story a certain way. And when Hal Jordan pop up in Justice League stuff after they were people literally going where is John Stewart because to them he was core to Justice League. If DC had stick with new 52 they would be people who would think that Wonder Woman is core to mythos if they told good stories. Think of what a person who watch and liked Smallville and person who watch and liked Lois & Clark think are the priorities for Superman. Do you think a person who watched Smallville is going to prioritize having a certain Superman suit,Metropolis or Lois Lane as part of the mythos? Probably not whereas a person who like Lois and Clark that would be everything to them.

Things people think are key elements of mythos can change,If this wasn't possible Superman would still be jumping over building and Batman would still be shooting guns.

[Coal Tiger]

The things some people are calling core is just the way they were told the story, The same way kids who watch JL cartoon was told the story a certain way. And when Hal Jordan pop up in Justice League stuff after they were people literally going where is John Stewart because to them he was core to Justice League. If DC had stick with new 52 they would be people who would think that Wonder Woman is core to mythos if they told good stories. Think of what a person who watch and liked Smallville and person who watch and liked Lois & Clark think are the priorities for Superman. Do you think a person who watched Smallville is going to prioritize having a certain Superman suit,Metropolis or Lois Lane as part of the mythos? Probably not whereas a person who like Lois and Clark that would be everything to them.

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.

[Killerbee911]

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.

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.

[Yoda]

They adapted? recovering drug addict,Set in the US, Set in the Modern day, Asian female Watson doesn't break the formula ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sherlock's drug use is at least hinted at in the original Doyle stories no? So keeping that in an adaptation isn't a stretch. Watson's race or gender isn't really an inherent part of the character or the interaction with Sherlock. Her being a surgeon retained most of the traditional Watson elements and their relationship was of the same character. Location is a bigger departure, but trading London for New York at least keeps the characteristics of the story setting the same. So no, that is an example of an adaptation that tweaks the formula without breaking it. Watson isn't shunted off to the background or the characteristics of her relationship or character altered or thrown out. Sherlock didn't decide to become a lawyer or something else, or date Lestrade.

Arguably, I think making Lois a man may result in taking something away from the character fundamentally, because her defying the gender roles was part of her base characteristics from the jump. But, I think there are probably ways you could keep some of the same elements in a genderswapped or same-sex relationship. As a middle aged white straight guy, that's not my wheelhouse to decode, but I think it could probably be done without breaking the inherent formula for either characters.

The things some people are calling core is just the way they were told the story, The same way kids who watch JL cartoon was told the story a certain way. And when Hal Jordan pop up in Justice League stuff after they were people literally going where is John Stewart because to them he was core to Justice League. If DC had stick with new 52 they would be people who would think that Wonder Woman is core to mythos if they told good stories. Think of what a person who watch and liked Smallville and person who watch and liked Lois & Clark think are the priorities for Superman. Do you think a person who watched Smallville is going to prioritize having a certain Superman suit,Metropolis or Lois Lane as part of the mythos? Probably not whereas a person who like Lois and Clark that would be everything to them.

Things people think are key elements of mythos can change,If this wasn't possible Superman would still be jumping over building and Batman would still be shooting guns.

Smallville's later seasons were set in Metropolis and Lois Lane was introduced halfway through the series before becoming a colead. It basically became a Lois & Clark show. So really, anyone who came into the Superman comics from any television or movie version will be expecting Metropolis and Lois Lane. The New 52 version directly contradicted the version WB's was trying to establish with Man of Steel. The romance/love triangle/balancing the secret identity aspect with Lois to varying degrees is expected. Wonder Woman as the love interest long term does not work. You lose far more than you gain storytelling wise with both characters. Particularly Wonder Woman.

Again, I'm not arguing for a slavish adherence to all traditional elements at all times. The suit has been altered to varying degrees throughout the 80 years. Same with the powers. But the ones that have stuck, that have gained traction, through fan support and mass media recognition are the "fundamentals" and the basics of the suit, secret identity, Lois Lane, Daily Planet, etc. are all aspects that have been with the character to varying degrees over the last 80 years.

I actually would be interested in seeing the current sales of the New 52 trades. Other than Morrison's Action run, I personally don't see anything in that back catalog that has any legs going forward. I'd imagine that the Death and Return of Superman trades will continue to be one of the entry points into the mythos for a lot of people.

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.

I agree with this to a certain extent. But if Chapter 2 goes off on some wild tangents that abandon the fundamentals established in Chapter 1, that's going to be a problem. Plus, we are dealing with one of the most valuable pieces of IP in the world. Superman as a brand that sells tshirts and TV shows is far more important than any comic adaptation. So the S-Shield and Red/Yellow/Blue color scheme isn't going anywhere. The romantic elements with Lois & Clark aren't going anywhere because the last 40 years have established that as the baseline romance for the general public, and its been very successful.