How would YOU have rebooted Superman in 1986?

[Kuwagaton]

If Smallville is boring, bland, or outdated, that sounds flawed to me.

Vordan, what I see as the difference there is describing Alfred and May but not the Kents. If they're not deep enough, would the solution come from using them more or less?

The point of them being earnest, good people is that Superman's life is ever-changing chaos and drama outside of home. Because he's allowed to bring his guard down sometimes and be his true self around family, he can be cool and well rounded when dealing with people. Should he be those things? I think that description ties into exactly who he's always been. Can he be those things without them? Definitely. That's what all the imaginary stories, Elseworlds, and other continuities show. So ultimately it makes little difference, and there are plenty of other characters defined by that sort of loss. The original, brief scene at the graves from Superman #1 strengthened his determination, but didn't inspire him. That was a sad thing that he got over prior to the start of the comics.

[Vordan]

That's the problem though...this notion that they necessarily have to represent an "idealized" America. Or that Superman himself has to be an 'ideal' more than a person.

And then people wonder why Superman is seen as boring, outdated or even santimonious...

Supes doesn’t, but it’s been a generally accepted notion that the moral core of why Clark chooses to be a hero needs to come from the Kents. New 52 Superman was definitely not a perfect person, but his Kents and Smallville seemed to be a great place to live. The conflict came from Clark feeling out of place, and desiring to be more than a “mere” farmer, just like how Diana isn’t content on Themyscaria and wants to go explore Man’s World. The “Call to Adventure” as it’s termed.

If Smallville is boring, bland, or outdated, that sounds flawed to me.

Vordan, what I see as the difference there is describing Alfred and May but not the Kents. If they're not deep enough, would the solution come from using them more or less?

The point of them being earnest, good people is that Superman's life is ever-changing chaos and drama outside of home. Because he's allowed to bring his guard down sometimes and be his true self around family, he can be cool and well rounded when dealing with people. Should he be those things? I think that description ties into exactly who he's always been. Can he be those things without them? Definitely. That's what all the imaginary stories, Elseworlds, and other continuities show. So ultimately it makes little difference, and there are plenty of other characters defined by that sort of loss. The original, brief scene at the graves from Superman #1 strengthened his determination, but didn't inspire him. That was a sad thing that he got over prior to the start of the comics.

No clue mate. The problem with trying to expand them beyond mere upstanding moral citizens is that you risk alienating people if they seem “too” flawed. I think people like the idea that humanity is the source of the morality of Superman, instead of his morality being a part of his Kryptonian heritage. People generally dislike the DCEU Kents who are explicitly not perfect role models. They’re fearful and hostile to the outside world and teach Clark to be afraid of himself, which was a complaint of that interpretation.

And to be fair, all the complaints I listed are only stuff that I personally dislike. Maybe the general audience loves the Kents being warm, loving parents that Clark can interact with whenever he wants. I think the Kents being dead gives Superman’s optimism and upbeat look on life more meaning, because he chooses not to let that tragedy define him like Batman does. I feel that Superman’s optimism is hollow and condescending if Clark never has had to wrestle with despair, alienation, or hopelessness, and I don’t think Krypton’s death really provides any of those because he barely remembers it unlike Kara.

I don’t like the Kents being alive into adulthood because I prefer Clark deal with his problems on his own because I think that’s more interesting, but maybe everyone else thinks differently. I mean after all I think Morrison’s Action Comics Origin is the best one, but plenty of people hate it, complain it makes him too edgy, and prefer Secret Origin or Birthright or whatever.

Kinda curious, what’s your preference man?

[Zero Hunter]

I personally hate Morrison's whole run. It is everything I hate about Morrison with his fanboyish love of the golden age. It is why I dread whenever Morrison comes onto a new book because then you have to hear the Morrisons fanboys talk about how that run is the best ever and all others are a step down for the next 20 years. I know that is what is going to happen with his new Green Lantern run without a single issue being published yet.

I liked the Kents being alive and thought Morrison killing them off "because that is how it was in the golden age" thinking to me was just stupid.

[DochaDocha]

I really enjoyed Byrne's reboot when I first read through it. I thought it accomplished a lot of nice things for Superman, shaping the character from past to present. There were a lot of things I didn't like, but I feel as I look back that it might be less of what Byrne did and more about how later writers picked up where Byrne left off and made things worse. I feel like a lot of the Post-Crisis problems with Superman, while they were born with Byrne's run, really took shape under other writers' stewardship.

Byrne's Superman was an introspective guy, and I thought Byrne did a lot of good internal mono-/dialogue. I felt like his Superman was one a lot of fans new to comics could appreciate because he's a thinking hero. Most of the complaints about his Superman I think are about superficial aspects: he was a bit of a yuppie, his life was too good, he was powered down, etc. I wouldn't say I like any of those three examples, but I don't feel like any of those three things are bad in itself. Yes, we have a physically weaker Superman, but unlike something like DCAU, I felt he was abundantly powerful enough. Yes, his life was too easy, but the issue that stems from this that really bugs me is that future writers framed it so that as soon as something bad happened to Superman, he'd crumble; IMO, that's not a Byrne problem even if Byrne indirectly is responsible for it. Okay, not a lot I can defend about Clark Kent as a yuppie...

I know a lot of people also look at the Byrne run as a time as Superman was some government stooge, and I think that tends to be overblown a bit. I don't look at it as one of the salient features of Byrne's stories, even if it is an aspects of it, and even if Byrne intended to do that. Perhaps I just prefer to envision it as that Superman was likable and not someone who could be tamed, governments wanted to work with him and not against him. I like the idea of Superman as a deputized member of Metropolis PD. His relationship with local government, and maybe even federal, is not one that I think should consist of the significant darker elements of his story, at least in the sense that I probably like it better when he and the government play nice with one another, even if it's a bit uneasy and perhaps a bit for show.

Anyway, I think Byrne mostly got the character right, and while his Superman had some cracks, he's not the writer who shattered Superman. Of course, I mean in the long run. Byrne of course is known for some real clunkers of Superman stories, and these days he's quite eccentric, to put it nicely. Overall, despite the warts of his run, it was still pretty good when I look at it in isolation. His run doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, so it did have some ramifications I didn't like. As such, I'd definitely tone down on some of the things I listed above, but I want to emphasize, too, that it was an enjoyable run.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

Bored at 3AM, for one thing he didn't date Lana and that, as it was pre-crisis, was a huge part of her character trajectory. She was the sympathetic one (I never want "sympathy" for Superman outside of tragic events, personally), and Clark was the one readers may not (but may) relate to: the guy oblivious to the one who loves him.

Really? That's not the impression I got from those old comics, but it's been many, many years since I've read them. Can anyone else confirm this?

I completely agree that her character arc was absolutely being way more in love with Clark than he was in love with her, though. I thought that was much more interesting than the Pre-Crisis idea of casting Lana & Lois as the Betty & Veronica to Clark's Archie.

Since you frame his high school career as a bad element, I don't get why these two points are here to contradict each other. What was "meant" to do was have different people see things differently. Some people relate to this thing, some relate to that. Seeing and telling it differently, consequently, is not a misunderstanding of the character.

Byrne's telling, that we're talking about 30 years later across vaguely related threads frequently, didn't pigeonhole readers. Supergirl has a large demographic of viewers and plenty of people show up to superhero films when the buzz is good, but the comics have to go by what label we were stuck with in high school? Should they make him less successful because they assume the reader isn't successful? Or not even really successful, just play sports or have a decent social life, maybe both.

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify this a tad for me?

My idea of making him play high level sports for fun came directly from the golden age. Superman is good at sports, enjoys them, and ladies love his ardent personality (at least in the comics) and his supernatural prowess. Those things you just have to accept no matter which version you read.

What kind of person has fun playing a game with people who are so greatly out of their class? Would Mike Tyson enjoy a boxing match against Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Would Usain Bolt think it was fair to beat Peter Dinklage in a race? Would Bobby Fischer take any pleasure in beating a 4 year old at chess?

I'm sorry, I don't accept that a hero like Superman would take advantage of people weaker than himself unless they've done something to deserve it. Superman has a biting sense of humor against criminals, sure. He'll play tricks on Steve Lombard because he's a bully. And yes, he had fun playing football against other guys so much weaker than him during one story in the Golden Age, but that was because he was investigating a crime. He wasn't doing it as a hobby. He was doing in the pursuit of justice. Clark Kent playing football in high school is not that.

[The World]

I guess it goes back to what I said in my last reply to Boredat3:00AM - killing them off cuts off a storytelling option, while keeping them alive gives the option to both use them and ignore them. So in that regard, it makes sense that the people who want them alive are more defensive about it. There's also the fact that the current status quo has both of them dead, so its something the 'Alive' camp is hoping changes.

All the storytelling options I've seen brought up concerning the Kent's has been people wanting scenes of them talking to Lois, Clark, and Jon. I'm not seeing any strong storytelling potential here just scenes people think might look nice. From an objective point of view we know that Superman works perfectly fine with dead parents; he did so for nearly 50 years before they were resurrected. There's probably thousands of stories produced in that time frame all while his parents existed only in his childhood with the stories that can be added by them being alive is at best negligible. Remember Superman is first and foremost a Superhero who more often than not goes into combat with other people or things. Idea should primarily be funneling into supporting that main idea.

I see what you mean and I agree that, in general, Superman has got a fairly raw deal from the 'Modern Age' of comics, and whatever the current era is - at least compared to many of DC's other major characters. But part of what you're saying has to do with the larger trend of trying to recontextualise these characters as being more than just 'superheroes' in their respective stories. Hence, you have Batman being defined as a 'vigilante', Green Lantern as a 'space cop', Hawkman as an 'explorer', Wonder Woman as an 'ambassador' or 'warrior princess', Aquaman as a 'king', and so on. Superman in some ways is the most generic 'superhero' character of the lot - which makes sense because he's the character who served as the blueprint for the entire genre. So it becomes a bit harder to contextualise him the way the other character have been - and 'farmboy at heart' was one approach which was taken which did not appeal to a major part of the fanbase. Having Superman be a paragon of virtue and living embodiment of all things moral is another approach taken which IMO has been way more detrimental to the character compared to the farmboy approach.

Aside from Aquaman as a King most of those idea are extensions of the main concept. Farmer isn't and really has no connection back to being a superhero which is the concept Superman helped pioneer. To me it looks like it was plucked out of the air because Superman lived in rural America and the writers probably figured it only made sense that he farmed. It's a sort of lazy surface level observation that imo has led to lazy surface level contributions to the Superman mythos.

I think the paragon of virtue thing and farmboy go hand in hand. it's a surface level examination based on stereotypes and assumptions.

I don't think its necessarily about bringing him down a notch, though sometimes that has happened. But it does help ground the character in a way and make him more relatable. If Superman has no family on earth and considers himself as Kryptonian first and foremost, an alien visitor to earth, then from a character point of view there's no real difference between him and the Martian Manhunter, apart from the details of his origin story. The Kents are important because they symbolize the fact that Superman was raised as a human, and has lived a human life for the most part - so it makes sense for him to consider himself as a human being on some level, albeit with an alien heritage. I agree its not necessary for the Kents to survive into Clark's adulthood to make them important, but having Clark able to fly home to Smallville and talk to his mom and dad, who are ordinary townsfolk, does ground this character who is the world's greatest superhero and practically a demi-god.

Living a human life could mean anything. It could mean you grew up in a war torn country, it could mean your parents were gunned down randomly, it could mean you got cancer as a baby and passed away in infancy. There's no real set concept of what a human life is because randomness is a part of the human experience. When I started paying attention to Superman he was married to Lois ,both the Kents were alive and well and he was still considered unrelateble. Meanwhile Batman with no parents was considered perfectly relateable.

I think individuality is a far more important and manageable goal to aspire to. Having been Superboy as a kid is inherently more unique both for Clark himself but also for the Kents than having the Kents alive in his adult years.

[bat39]

I really enjoyed Byrne's reboot when I first read through it. I thought it accomplished a lot of nice things for Superman, shaping the character from past to present. There were a lot of things I didn't like, but I feel as I look back that it might be less of what Byrne did and more about how later writers picked up where Byrne left off and made things worse. I feel like a lot of the Post-Crisis problems with Superman, while they were born with Byrne's run, really took shape under other writers' stewardship.

Byrne's Superman was an introspective guy, and I thought Byrne did a lot of good internal mono-/dialogue. I felt like his Superman was one a lot of fans new to comics could appreciate because he's a thinking hero. Most of the complaints about his Superman I think are about superficial aspects: he was a bit of a yuppie, his life was too good, he was powered down, etc. I wouldn't say I like any of those three examples, but I don't feel like any of those three things are bad in itself. Yes, we have a physically weaker Superman, but unlike something like DCAU, I felt he was abundantly powerful enough. Yes, his life was too easy, but the issue that stems from this that really bugs me is that future writers framed it so that as soon as something bad happened to Superman, he'd crumble; IMO, that's not a Byrne problem even if Byrne indirectly is responsible for it. Okay, not a lot I can defend about Clark Kent as a yuppie...

I know a lot of people also look at the Byrne run as a time as Superman was some government stooge, and I think that tends to be overblown a bit. I don't look at it as one of the salient features of Byrne's stories, even if it is an aspects of it, and even if Byrne intended to do that. Perhaps I just prefer to envision it as that Superman was likable and not someone who could be tamed, governments wanted to work with him and not against him. I like the idea of Superman as a deputized member of Metropolis PD. His relationship with local government, and maybe even federal, is not one that I think should consist of the significant darker elements of his story, at least in the sense that I probably like it better when he and the government play nice with one another, even if it's a bit uneasy and perhaps a bit for show.

Anyway, I think Byrne mostly got the character right, and while his Superman had some cracks, he's not the writer who shattered Superman. Of course, I mean in the long run. Byrne of course is known for some real clunkers of Superman stories, and these days he's quite eccentric, to put it nicely. Overall, despite the warts of his run, it was still pretty good when I look at it in isolation. His run doesn't exist in a vacuum, however, so it did have some ramifications I didn't like. As such, I'd definitely tone down on some of the things I listed above, but I want to emphasize, too, that it was an enjoyable run.

I personally loved Byrne's MOS series as well, having first read it as a kid. In many ways, it has shaped my perception of who Superman is, along with the DCAU.

If there's any work that contributed to the perception of Superman being a 'government stooge', its Frank Miller's DKR. I don't see how Byrne specifically contributed to that perception. Superman has always had good relations with the powers-that-be, dating back to WW2. Byrne didn't really change much in that regard. Byrne did de-power Superman a bit, but honestly, certain aspects of Superman's Silver Age power-set were a bit silly, so bringing his 'God-hood' down to manageable proportions may have been a good call. Of course, as you've said, a lot of writers went on to exaggerate certain aspects of Byrne's run, leading to the perception of him being a (relative) physical weakling and a navel-gazer.

[Kuwagaton]

No clue mate. The problem with trying to expand them beyond mere upstanding moral citizens is that you risk alienating people if they seem “too” flawed. I think people like the idea that humanity is the source of the morality of Superman, instead of his morality being a part of his Kryptonian heritage. People generally dislike the DCEU Kents who are explicitly not perfect role models. They’re fearful and hostile to the outside world and teach Clark to be afraid of himself, which was a complaint of that interpretation.

And to be fair, all the complaints I listed are only stuff that I personally dislike. Maybe the general audience loves the Kents being warm, loving parents that Clark can interact with whenever he wants. I think the Kents being dead gives Superman’s optimism and upbeat look on life more meaning, because he chooses not to let that tragedy define him like Batman does. I feel that Superman’s optimism is hollow and condescending if Clark never has had to wrestle with despair, alienation, or hopelessness, and I don’t think Krypton’s death really provides any of those because he barely remembers it unlike Kara.

I don’t like the Kents being alive into adulthood because I prefer Clark deal with his problems on his own because I think that’s more interesting, but maybe everyone else thinks differently. I mean after all I think Morrison’s Action Comics Origin is the best one, but plenty of people hate it, complain it makes him too edgy, and prefer Secret Origin or Birthright or whatever.

Kinda curious, what’s your preference man?

I think Krypton is enough death to last him. Maybe I slightly lean more towards the Kents being alive because of that. There are some paths you can't take with a grown man that you could take with Superboy (for example paternal tension between Pa and Jor-el, who we have right now, would be terrible when Clark is like 40) but adopted families and how they grow are pretty interesting things to explore.

For all the trouble of it, the compromise from Man of Steel seemed to be the best option.

I personally hate Morrison's whole run. It is everything I hate about Morrison with his fanboyish love of the golden age. It is why I dread whenever Morrison comes onto a new book because then you have to hear the Morrisons fanboys talk about how that run is the best ever and all others are a step down for the next 20 years. I know that is what is going to happen with his new Green Lantern run without a single issue being published yet.

I liked the Kents being alive and thought Morrison killing them off "because that is how it was in the golden age" thinking to me was just stupid.

Whoa, did not expect that. I think Morrison had a huge advantage in having so much material to revisit and process, but his story really felt like the best they could offer.

I'm sorry. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify this a tad for me?

I wasn't actually sure what you were saying that people aren't meant to relate to him as a normal guy,but that consequently setting him outside of the comic reader stereotypes was a problem.

What kind of person has fun playing a game with people who are so greatly out of their class? Would Mike Tyson enjoy a boxing match against Ruth Bader Ginsberg?

Prime Tyson? I think this question is a little more difficult than it should be.

Would Usain Bolt think it was fair to beat Peter Dinklage in a race? Would Bobby Fischer take any pleasure in beating a 4 year old at chess?

I'm sorry, I don't accept that a hero like Superman would take advantage of people weaker than himself unless they've done something to deserve it. Superman has a biting sense of humor against criminals, sure. He'll play tricks on Steve Lombard because he's a bully. And yes, he had fun playing football against other guys so much weaker than him during one story in the Golden Age, but that was because he was investigating a crime. He wasn't doing it as a hobby. He was doing in the pursuit of justice. Clark Kent playing football in high school is not that.

Superman yes, not a high schooler who doesn't know what he is or hasn't thought much about what his future is worth. He leaves Smallville for seven years to think things through. Although he did obviously have powers and that isn't fair no matter how old you are. By Zero Hour they did reduce his strength in youth to correct that. But I think that's different from the contention with him being a "popular football jock," unlesspeople really do mean that losing the idea of Clark the disguise is fine there if he just doesn't have the powers.

As for the golden age, I actually just meant that as a person, he was into sports. Again I agree that by the time he's Superman, it's difficult for him to tone down his great advantages without taking away the whole point. Although that's not really wose than constantly scooping Lois and taunting her.

[bat39]

I think Krypton is enough death to last him. Maybe I slightly lean more towards the Kents being alive because of that. There are some paths you can't take with a grown man that you could take with Superboy (for example paternal tension between Pa and Jor-el, who we have right now, would be terrible when Clark is like 40) but adopted families and how they grow are pretty interesting things to explore.

For all the trouble of it, the compromise from Man of Steel seemed to be the best option.



Whoa, did not expect that. I think Morrison had a huge advantage in having so much material to revisit and process, but his story really felt like the best they could offer.



I wasn't actually sure what you were saying that people aren't meant to relate to him as a normal guy,but that consequently setting him outside of the comic reader stereotypes was a problem.




Prime Tyson? I think this question is a little more difficult than it should be.



Superman yes, not a high schooler who doesn't know what he is or hasn't thought much about what his future is worth. He leaves Smallville for seven years to think things through. Although he did obviously have powers and that isn't fair no matter how old you are. By Zero Hour they did reduce his strength in youth to correct that. But I think that's different from the contention with him being a "popular football jock," unlesspeople really do mean that losing the idea of Clark the disguise is fine there if he just doesn't have the powers.

As for the golden age, I actually just meant that as a person, he was into sports. Again I agree that by the time he's Superman, it's difficult for him to tone down his great advantages without taking away the whole point. Although that's not really wose than constantly scooping Lois and taunting her.

You know, on the athletic front, people act like Clark was actively using his powers to win football matches. He wasn't using superspeed to make his way across the field or super-strength to knock everyone else aside. If he had, then he wouldn't have been a football star, he'd have been the high-school kid injuring his fellow players with super-powers. Yes, I have no doubt that his Kryptonian nature allowed him to operate at peak human efficiency on the football court, but he wasn't actually using his powers to win. Its kinda like The Incredibles, with Dash competing in races without using his super-speed.

Now people would claim that Clark is immoral for having had that football career. But that's the thing though - people want Clark to have spent every waking moment of his life as this pillar of virtue. People think of Superman as the ultimately beacon of all that is good, or whatever they consider 'good' to be.

Personally, I don't see Clark as having been a football star as a kid. I'd prefer to imagine him as having been a bit more academically inclined, maybe demonstrating an early interest in journalism. The only dog I have in this particular fight is the notion that Clark needs to have spent his entire life being a paragon of moral virtue with not a single moment spent on his own pleasure or self-interest. I remember a while back there was a thread where people who argued that Clark having a family was 'selfish' because Superman should be on patrol 24/7!

[DochaDocha]

You know, on the athletic front, people act like Clark was actively using his powers to win football matches. He wasn't using superspeed to make his way across the field or super-strength to knock everyone else aside. If he had, then he wouldn't have been a football star, he'd have been the high-school kid injuring his fellow players with super-powers. Yes, I have no doubt that his Kryptonian nature allowed him to operate at peak human efficiency on the football court, but he wasn't actually using his powers to win. Its kinda like The Incredibles, with Dash competing in races without using his super-speed.

Now people would claim that Clark is immoral for having had that football career. But that's the thing though - people want Clark to have spent every waking moment of his life as this pillar of virtue. People think of Superman as the ultimately beacon of all that is good, or whatever they consider 'good' to be.

Personally, I don't see Clark as having been a football star as a kid. I'd prefer to imagine him as having been a bit more academically inclined, maybe demonstrating an early interest in journalism. The only dog I have in this particular fight is the notion that Clark needs to have spent his entire life being a paragon of moral virtue with not a single moment spent on his own pleasure or self-interest. I remember a while back there was a thread where people who argued that Clark having a family was 'selfish' because Superman should be on patrol 24/7!

You could say both Clark and Dash were sandbagging a bit, but Dash was actually tanking (i.e. losing on purpose). Clark was a super-duper star on the football field, and was doing the minimum possible to ensure his team's victories. I get the impression Dash does his bit to blend with his classmates and not look too exceptional, whereas Clark seemed to be enjoying winning football games.

I actually think Byrne handled this part OK. In retrospect, I don't think it was the best idea, but given how he handled it, he handled it ok. Clark's HS football career was limited to a few panels, and one talk from Jonathan was all it took to get him to give it up.

[Vordan]

You know, on the athletic front, people act like Clark was actively using his powers to win football matches. He wasn't using superspeed to make his way across the field or super-strength to knock everyone else aside. If he had, then he wouldn't have been a football star, he'd have been the high-school kid injuring his fellow players with super-powers. Yes, I have no doubt that his Kryptonian nature allowed him to operate at peak human efficiency on the football court, but he wasn't actually using his powers to win. Its kinda like The Incredibles, with Dash competing in races without using his super-speed.

Now people would claim that Clark is immoral for having had that football career. But that's the thing though - people want Clark to have spent every waking moment of his life as this pillar of virtue. People think of Superman as the ultimately beacon of all that is good, or whatever they consider 'good' to be.

Personally, I don't see Clark as having been a football star as a kid. I'd prefer to imagine him as having been a bit more academically inclined, maybe demonstrating an early interest in journalism. The only dog I have in this particular fight is the notion that Clark needs to have spent his entire life being a paragon of moral virtue with not a single moment spent on his own pleasure or self-interest. I remember a while back there was a thread where people who argued that Clark having a family was 'selfish' because Superman should be on patrol 24/7!

God yes that’s so idiotic. Always irritates me when people get mad when Clark acts selfishly or as a less than perfect moral standard. As long as he isn’t starting the Fourth Reich I think it’s perfectly acceptable to show that’s Clark struggle to live up to the standards expected of him.

[DochaDocha]

God yes that’s so idiotic. Always irritates me when people get mad when Clark acts selfishly or as a less than perfect moral standard. As long as he isn’t starting the Fourth Reich I think it’s perfectly acceptable to show that’s Clark struggle to live up to the standards expected of him.

I feel so many writers justify their Superman representations by saying something like, "Our version of Superman isn't perfect..." As if there's been a relevant version of Superman's who's been perfect in the last 30 years!

This is part of the reason I like Superman to be a bit of a troll or a jokester now and then. You don't have to dwell on the crap he can't do, but goes to show he's not so pious, either.

[Thor-Ul]

You could say both Clark and Dash were sandbagging a bit, but Dash was actually tanking (i.e. losing on purpose). Clark was a super-duper star on the football field, and was doing the minimum possible to ensure his team's victories. I get the impression Dash does his bit to blend with his classmates and not look too exceptional, whereas Clark seemed to be enjoying winning football games.

I actually think Byrne handled this part OK. In retrospect, I don't think it was the best idea, but given how he handled it, he handled it ok. Clark's HS football career was limited to a few panels, and one talk from Jonathan was all it took to get him to give it up.

I remember that scene of Man of Steel, and boy, Pa Kent was really upset and dissapointed with Clark for that. But was Clark in the wrong for that? I mean, he was using his talents as he thought were the best, and learning from his mistakes.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I remember that scene of Man of Steel, and boy, Pa Kent was really upset and dissapointed with Clark for that. But was Clark in the wrong for that? I mean, he was using his talents as he thought were the best, and learning from his mistakes.

I think the whole point of that scene was to give Pa Kent the impetus to finally tell Clark about his alien heritage. He's disappointed in not only Clark, but himself in letting his son waste his potential. It's an interesting idea, but I just don't think it's as compelling as a more isolated Clark in his youth.

I think it all comes down to how much tragedy different fans want out of their Superman. I think the hope and optimism work better when it's come out of overcoming real pain, loneliness and difficulties. Without them, the character just isn't as interesting to me.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

I feel so many writers justify their Superman representations by saying something like, "Our version of Superman isn't perfect..." As if there's been a relevant version of Superman's who's been perfect in the last 30 years!

This is part of the reason I like Superman to be a bit of a troll or a jokester now and then. You don't have to dwell on the crap he can't do, but goes to show he's not so pious, either.

Pious Superman is pretty dull. It's a tricky balance to get right between making him the best person you've ever met, but not so perfect he's a bore, nor so flawed he's no longer inspiring.

Batman's easy. He's a mess. He's a straight up @$$€@!! most of the time, but he's always doing something awesome that would get anyone else killed.

Superman has to be this beacon of hope and the most powerful man in the world. It's tough to make that work without the easy crutches you can rely on with other superheroes.