Here's the thing; when I see criticism of how Superman acted in season 1, it isn't coming from kids who watch the show or people introduced to the DC universe through the show. It seems to be coming from Superman comic fans almost if not entirely exclusively. I have yet to see any kids come away hating Superman or complaining about his portrayal past season 1 but I do see a lot of older comic fans complaining about how this take is out of character for him.
That's why I pointed out that this stuff has precedent in the comics. Because the dislike of it seems to be coming from comic fans even though they more than anyone should not be surprised by it.
Last edited by Agent Z; 10-14-2021 at 08:13 AM.
"Superman (what I really mean is my immigrant heritage) is what I do, Clark is who I am" is some very Reagan era "throw away your customs, you either are only American or you're not" bullshit that always reads as nativist bullshit, like you're not American unless you're born here or are determined to bury anything about you from your old country unless it's useful to America. It's all just some thinly veiled nationalist garbage.
I do think that in his head he refers to himself as Clark more often than Kal, and Kansas is what he thinks about when he thinks about "back home," but his alien nature is very much a part of him he embraces. He doesn't just dismiss it as a charade he puts on when it's necessary. Christ.
Every time a writer tries to split the character to make them easier to digest for themselves, they reveal that they can't handle complex notions like "your work persona and home persona aren't fake, they're both you."
Superman, Batman and pretty much any person or character are a prism that every perspective filters through and are a summation of the refractions that result. Work you is you. Home you is you. It's not hard to process, but when it comes to fictional characters we seem unable to do anything but reduce then to two dimensional so they're easy to digest and offer no depth. It's pathetic.
They're all facets of the same dude. I agree each of them defaults a little closer to different iterations (Clark for Superman, Batman for Bruce) but trying to say the others are masks is supposing that people are very simple constructs that don't adapt and grow, they're static and they affect without actually having nuance.
That's categorically false.
Superman is a staple of the main DC universe, but that doesn't mean we can't get other stories that have other people in that role.
I mean, of course, kids don't complain about it, this is their introduction to the character. This is what is going to colour their perception of the character and for most this is how they are going to see the character for the rest of their lives probably.
I accepted DCAU versions of Wonder Woman, Shade, Cheetah and Sinestro when I first watched them because I had no other reference point for those characters but now that I know more about those characters, I can see how they could have been done better and in which areas those versions fell short. I feel the same way about YJ version of Wally West.
Now fans having trouble accepting different versions of the characters...again, it largely come down to preference and first impressions.
I do think that older fans have this subconscious fear that newer fans will see what they deem as the 'wrong' versions of the character and that's how the characters will be defined forever. The fear is warranted hence why you have 'Hank Pym wife beater' or Scarlet Witch being forever defined by HoM'.
I still like the 'Clark is who I am' quote. I mean, for all he knew, he was Clark Kent until whichever age Johnathan and Martha told him about the ship.
Though I guess as an adult today, it would be more like 'Clark, Kal, Superman, they're all me'.
Seconding this. This pretty much sums up what I was trying to say.
Initially, yeah, but I think over time most of Hoechlin's appearances would be more about him praising Kara and putting himself down than just being generally supportive. The Superman and Lois Reddit had a full montage of it.
Well, Bruce took learning about Damian pretty well in the comics. Not cloning, but a conception he was technically (per Morrison) drugged into.
I think there's a difference in how they would react to what happened and how they would treat the person the were cloned from.
I don't think the issue was not seeing him as a son but barely having anything to do with Conner (from Conner's perspective) while Conner wanted to get to know him better.I disagree. And frankly, I don't think Clark was doing the wrong thing by not treating Connor as his son. For one thing, Connor isn't Clark's son no matter how much people insist he is. And remember that for most of Connor's comic history, he and Clark wanted nothing to do with each other. YJ Clark also left Connor in the care of Red Tornado and Black Canary which certainly beats leaving a money grabbing agent in charge of Connor's car like in the comics.
Which, again, was developed better in the tie-in comic than the show.
Like the tie-in comic.Well they did show the beginnings of it in the season 1 finale. Perhaps they could have shown more of it but it didn't just come out of nowhere.
I think a lot of people forget the whole Batman = real and Bruce Wayne = Fake comes from an era where they did a whole storyline about how problematic that is (Murder/Fugitive) and it was brought on by a lot of emotional and physical trauma from Jason's death and onwards.
Well, it's not like he was running Wayne Enterprises or had a firm job at the time. Or it was something he was really thinking about, because Bruce only sees his wealth as something to use to fight crime or help people.
Yeah, but I don't think they have to get egregious with using Clark to prop up Kara.Well, it is a Supergirl show right?
Seige's argument is that this portrayal in YJ would potentially turn people against Superman.
I don't think YJ Superman is remotely as bad these.
I do think that older fans have this subconscious fear that newer fans will see what they deem as the 'wrong' versions of the character and that's how the characters will be defined forever. The fear is warranted hence why you have 'Hank Pym wife beater' or Scarlet Witch being forever defined by HoM'.
DC can do as many reboots as it wants, but with the caveat that it continues to set stories in the universe it's leaving behind. If only every so often.
I didn't say it would turn people against him. More that it wouldn't do much to endear people to him in the first place.
Younger audiences aren't complaining about the portrayal, but how many of them are really excited about him in the show? He's just a recurring guest and I doubt any of them care one way or the other about Clark's perspective the way you lay it out. To them he's probably just a jerk to Superboy until he's not, and they move on.
I don't think having time pass normally would really play out as well as some might think.