Either getting Pre Crisis or Post Crisis settled is the key to fixing Superman.

[Jon Clark]

Isn't 1948 "pre-CoIE"?

Technically. But I can't remember how detailed the serials were. It's likely that in a Pre-Crisis vs Post-Crisis debate the serials were generic enough to fit either category despite the date they were made.

[Kuwagaton]

I think in any case you have to admire how cozy that interpretation of the costume top looks. That poster feels like an old timey Andrew Robinson

[Clark_Kent]

Not to be that guy, but....ok, I'll be that guy. His name was REEVE. No 'S'. That was the 50's guy. Christopher Reeve had no s in his last name, it's actually more work for you to type the 's' at the end. I'm not sure why so many Superman fans get this wrong.

Ok, you can carry on now. My apologies for any rudeness.

[manwhohaseverything]

I have a question? How is superman tas strictly post crisis? In tas there is no mention of him being a jock as far as i remember. He had met the legion as a kid. His fortress is something he built with his own hand(no giant keys though) by adapting and collecting technology from his adventures. He also had to beat the crap out of brainiac to get the records,memories and data of his home planets and other planets.his power level is strictly golden age. Clark kent winks like golden age guy. There is nothing concrete said about who he is, whether he is clark kent or superman.

The only post crisis element is ma and pa being alive. Supergirl being non kryptonIan. Supergirl thing is different here than both post crisis and pre crisis. Supergirl is from a colony of Krypton from same solar system. He doesn't act overtly clumsy. But, hides in plane site even tells lois he is superman disguised as clark kent. Kent values are there. But, kent. Those Values should be important in both pre and post crisis.

As for Smallville, he isn't post crisis superman or pre crisis. Clark in that is outsider. He tried everything . He wanted to be a jock at first, because he wanted to not be seen as loser. He gave it up when he tried it partly because of chloe and partly it wasn't fair or fun for him. He didn't fit the bill of a nerd or goth. He wrote some for the torch. but wasn't that much of a conspiracy theorist like chloe. One of his parents died, early. He hated living a double life. He wanted to make difference as himself. But, when he came around to it. He was a living triple life where nerdy glasses clark was a disguise and superman was also a semi disguise. He was only true "clark kent" with lois, oliver, chloe.. Etc. In Smallville, clark was really good with kids and bringing in strays.He had an adopted brother who died because of brain tumour. He also lost his first girlfriend. Jimmy's older brother also died. His foretress is donner-esque, which isn't exactly precrisis but more post crisis style.

[JAK]

The Superman fans are divided. Some like the Silver age pre Crisis Superman, think Chris Reeves. Philosophically, he's Siperman disguised as Clark Kent. Clark Kent doesn't exist. So he's a bumbling idiot who trips over his shoelaces.

Where as you have Post Crisis Superman where Clark Kent is disguised as Superman. He's Clark Kent, raised on Kent values. Superman is the disguise. Think Superman animated series and Smallville.

There have been attempts to mix the two i.e. Bendis with Silver age mixed with Post Crisis style. But it isn't necessarily working. So, if you were in charge of getting Superman character off the ground again, which version of him would be best going forward, Silvervage Pre Crisis or Post Crisis. Side note, please get rid of the trunks lol.

Honestly, I think the "Reborn" path is the right one (more or less), it just needs more time to set into place. It's only been 3 years, after all. Especially in a medium where not everybody pays attention to every story, it all needs time to gel. Honestly, this board (albeit a microcosm) is about as harmonious as I've ever seen it. Flare-ups about Post-COIE vs New 52 have really died down, and while people will always have "their" Superman, I don't see as much "this isn't my Superman" as I did before/around Rebirth. Most like Superman himself now, it's just the rest (with some exceptions) that I see the most discussion around, issue-wise.

This is why I think they should create/use another Superman. Embrace that these--despite them being often times subtle--differences indeed split the fandom and instead of trying to combine them, separate them entirely. For the main line stick with the post-Crisis flavor. Take more pre-Crisis themes as the other one. I know that brings about the question: Why Superman? Why does he get this treatment and not others? Well one, Superman's a bit unique in this regard. No other fandom is really divided like this outside of mythoi with actual different people in the main role (Barry/Wally). Two, Superman can support it. He's not AS popular as he used to be by any stretch, but the concept and mythos can carry quite a few books still, this much is proven. Three, well, by all means do branch out and do it with other characters. In the end ideally you actually end up with a situation where all of fandom checks out both worlds. And indeed best of both worlds there.

I still like my "the multiverse grows every x number of years and you'll still see your versions from time to time" idea. Heck, have a line for the current version, and a line just for telling stories throughout the multiverse. That'd be pretty cool.

Why does Superman get this treatment? Simple answer. You had a successful silver age on screen translation in Chris Reeves Superman, but unfortunately, we've yet to have a successful post Crisis Superman on screen. All have short. Superman Returns, nope. Man of Steel, nice try, but still not it, btw, I think Henry Cavill should be kept and a soft reboot be done, but I digress, we've yet to have a successful live incarnation of a post Crisis Superman on screen.

It’s weird because in some ways, the Donner Superman IS Post-Crisis Superman.

I'd say that the Donner Superman is the transition point between the Bronze Age and Post-Crisis. He's pieces of both, definitely - mostly because he was such an influence on everything that came after, but still.

But you see, Man of Steel kinda was New 52 Superman.

I have to agree that a Pre-Crisis Superman has yet to be seen in live action.

The Donner movies made Superman a more divided character. Clark (at least by 1978) was no longer a clown. He was less confrontation than the average guy, but unless his clumsiness was needed to cover a super-feat he wasn't particularly clutzy. And Superman wasn't stand-offish or obsessed with not affecting humanity. The whole training by Jor-El was something we had never seen in any medium before. Whether or not Clark knew of his origins he was always as much a product of Earth as anything- and his Kryptonian heritage was a part of that without being at odds with it. It was only after the movie that we saw ideas about whether he was more the son of Krypton or the Kents. That take was continued on the Superboy TV series that seemed more Pre-Crisis than post, despite being released 3 years after the Byrne reboot.

I'd say that MoS was more the Birthright/Camelot Falls Superman. He's definitely not the Post-Crisis Superman by any stretch, even if some of the trappings give that impression at quick glance. The consistently lingering self-doubt, etc, is largely (Exile notwithstanding) from the early 2000's.

I think we need a Superman who at his core is the Bronze Age Superman. A guy who is a hero 24/7 and identifies more with his Superman role, but whose Clark Kent guise is a more natural outgrowth of his experiences. A Clark who tries to shed attention and avoid physical confrontation, but who shares the same backbone as Superman just in a less forceful manner. Superman will physically confront a corrupt builder at the scene of a building collapse while threatening and lecturing the man about safety issues. Clark will maybe ask the guy hard questions but will avoid a shouting match preferring to let his story do the talking. Superman will obviously deal with a mugger he comes across in a direct manner. Clark will hand over his wallet without resistance, but look for some way to use hs powers covertly to trip up the mugger. To anyone but the reader (and characters in on the secret) Clark is almost never the hero.

To some extent, this description of Clark Kent very much fits the Triangle Era - by far my favorite Clark, though I do like them all.

[Jon Clark]

Not to be that guy, but....ok, I'll be that guy. His name was REEVE. No 'S'. That was the 50's guy. Christopher Reeve had no s in his last name, it's actually more work for you to type the 's' at the end. I'm not sure why so many Superman fans get this wrong.

Ok, you can carry on now. My apologies for any rudeness.

The last names differ by a single letter. Getting them confused when you are typing is no more difficult than any other typo, even if you know which is which.

[Soubhagya]

It really wasn't a New 52 movie though. Clark was going through a more personal journey to discover his roots in the movie, there was nothing on his journalism or "champion of the oppressed" stuff in there, nor any of the Golden Age swagger. Cavill probably could have killed it if he was given that material, but he wasn't and some have accused the film of not letting him emote at all.

Movie audiences haven't really gotten a fun Superman who kicks ass and has balls of steel but is still a super nice, charismatic guy who does the right thing because it's right. It might help restore his popularity if we got one. If it was presented in a well done, fun, (god help us) Marvel style tone people would eat that **** up.

I agree. Comics wise i am fine. But in films that's the kind of Superman that would fly if done in a fun way.

Captain America is cool because they changed the formula of his movies. Borrowing heavy from the Brubaker run. Which saw Cap change from social crusader/Avenger. To a Mission Impossible/James Bond super spy superhero. Note how the Brubaker and the Russo brother movies kept the super villain/world ending plans to a minimum. Cap's cast in both comics and movies was elevated by street level heroes and villains. Bucky, Falcon, Zemo, Crossbones, Sin, Sharon Carter (way cooler in the comics than the movies), and Nick Fury.


With Supes, you are advocating a mishmash of the hyperbolic fantasy/whimsical fairy tale of the Silver Age/Reeves films and the modern (what if Superman was real in our world) take of post-Crisis/New 52/MOS.

Captain America worked on screen because he changed genres to something people like and can easily consume. See James Bond, Mission Impossible, Fast and the Furious 5-8. Something similar can work for Supes, but you'd have to work out the how, and what of the question. How would you go about adapting genres and attracting and audience. What is the new take trying to accomplish or what goal is Supes working towards.


It be better to compare Supes to Thor. Thor managed to keep the fantasy and fairy tale aspects of his comics and still produce action romps with comedy. Issue with Supes is, you can't do that with the Daily Planet cast. Jimmy, Lois, Perry, Cat, Steve and Morgan Edge don't fit into that type of world. There are however low tier JLA, JSA and TT members Supes could have adventures with and play off against. Just like Thor and Cap play off against lower tier characters in their movies to great success.

I haven't thought about this as i haven't read Brubaker's run. But you are absolutely right. Winter Soldier was very much in the Bond/Mission Impossible vein.

If the rumors are correct, they are doing one thing right. One can easily bring together Superman and the Green Lantern Corps. I have always felt that these two worlds mash together very nicely being cosmic in their scope.

Continuing my point about Superman being like an archetype, i think Superman works best when he is surrounded by interesting supporting characters. MCU has done a good job of bringing together interesting characters and having them bounce of each other. Even their low key films like Homecoming is fun, with Ned and Peter bouncing off each other.


I would put in my two cents. DC is experimenting with stuff like Joker. And in comics you are getting Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane maxi series. Imagine doing Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen films with Superman showing up as a supporting character. Something like in comics now. You can have Superman wearing T-shirt and jeans fighting in the street against corrupt tycoons. That would explain what is Superman doing when he isn't fighting intergalactic tyrants. He's fighting tyrants at home.

Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane are offbeat ideas, which need not require 200 million dollar budgets. You can have a Superman universe corner of the DC 'extended' universe. Effectively a Superman cinematic universe. The main Superman films with LoSH, or Superman and the GL corps or Superman and the Shazam family. Superman solo films have to tend toward science fantasy. Fortress of solitude. Kandor and Superman robots can by themselves make two films between them if people aren't fine with GL corps. And more down to earth stuff with Lois Lane or Jimmy Olsen. Though Jimmy Olsen can easily fit into both types of films.



Some superficial changes can be helpful imo. You have to bring in Superman robots/ Fortress of solitude with Superman 'sciencing' it. Its something Tony Stark the most popular cinematic superhero did recently. There's nothing bad with implementing ideas from the competition. Especially when it was part of the history of Superman, And after defeating Braniac, make him a JARVIS like AI for Superman. In comics, you get what Superman is thinking via thought bubbles. Evaluating ways and means to achieve an objective. In the films he is just a brute force.

[MajorHoy]

Isn't 1948 "pre-CoIE"?

Technically. But I can't remember how detailed the serials were. It's likely that in a Pre-Crisis vs Post-Crisis debate the serials were generic enough to fit either category despite the date they were made.

It's strange how you could even think that a movie that came out nearly 40 years before CoIE could possibly be put in a post-CoIE category since 1948 was still during the Golden Age for the comic books . . .

[Kuwagaton]

I'd say that MoS was more the Birthright/Camelot Falls Superman. He's definitely not the Post-Crisis Superman by any stretch, even if some of the trappings give that impression at quick glance. The consistently lingering self-doubt, etc, is largely (Exile notwithstanding) from the early 2000's.



To some extent, this description of Clark Kent very much fits the Triangle Era - by far my favorite Clark, though I do like them all.

It's weird that Mole Men, StM, StM III, Quest for Peace, TAS, Returns, and MoS came at pivotal points of transition for the comics, but hardly emphasized the before or after details. Well maybe you can make a case that MoS summarized the pre Flashpoint well and L&C was a pretty solid adaptation akin to the Adam West Batman, but still.

And agreed, my best summaries for the Superman between 1942 to the mid 50s and 1968 ish to 1986 match the 1986 reboot to Birthright Superman (Pok Zod imo being a significant harbinger) most specifically. Which is ironic because they really tried the "alien" emphasis heavy with that, then Azzarello and the general Infinite Crisis era. Typically he's the same guy with a different upbringing. Literally the guy who both talks shop with Reed Richards one on end and lays out Thor on the other. A guy who treats slum citizens of Metropolis and aristocrats in the halls of space empires with the same respect and sense of duty. I tend to see more differences in Batman going from Grant to King for one example.

[Jim Kelly]

I think by pre-COIE what we really mean is Earth-One Superman--although because of DC screwing up the names for the Earths by making alternative versions of Earth-One and the other multiple Earths, it's no good anymore to say Earth-One Superman and be sure that people know which one you mean.

It was a little frustrating to me when I first read the Superman Archives, because the Siegel & Shuster Superman never became that Superman that was in the 1960s. They seemed to ignore a lot of the science fiction potential of what they had created and there wasn't too much development of Superman's large supporting cast. In the serials it's even worse, because the crooks have none of the brilliance that they had in the comics. There's a really mundane sense to Superman that continues in the comic strip, radio and TV adventures. You can see a bit of something percolating but it isn't quite there yet.

It's only late into the 1950s where everything seems to come together and you have this energetic and enthralling surrender to all things super and fantastic. And yet that's matched by characters that can spend a whole story trying to find a job or look for the best birthday present. It's like they never said no to an idea. Even though Mort Weisinger was supposed to be a horrible task master and apparently imposed his own plots on the writers, there must have been a lot of blue sky thinking, because the comics are just bursting with novel ideas and take your imagination off in different directions of adventure.

That can't happen if there are limitations set on your characters. But back in the 1960s, we were used to things like MERRIE MELODIES, where the Warner Brothers animated characters were virtually repertory theatre players--they would slip into a variety of stories with ease. Likewise, any TV show could easily switch genre from week to week. On BONANZA, they managed to flip from Shakespeare to Congreve without missing a beat. It wasn't expected that the characters had to be exactly the same in each episode.

Yet if one is expected to maintain a consistent tone, every story has to be important and canonical, and there needs to be concrete explanations with consequences for each action--then you don't have the freedom to throw anything at the wall and see if it sticks.

[Jon Clark]

It's strange how you could even think that a movie that came out nearly 40 years before CoIE could possibly be put in a post-CoIE category since 1948 was still during the Golden Age for the comic books . . .

If you listed the concepts that are considered Pre-Crisis as opposed to Post-Crisis I doubt many if any of them are apparent in the early Superman tales. In fact, a lot of Byrne's concepts were harkening back to the Golden Age and casting off the Silver Age developments. So some stories from say 1939, 1944, or 1948 might fit the Post-Crisis Superman better than the 1985 Superman (the point Pre-Crisis ends). It's not about the date as much as the defining features of Superman that are played up.

I doubt the 1948 serial dealt with whether Superman thought of himself as Kryptonian or even whether or not he was aware of his specific origins. There probably wasn't much exploration of identifying as Clark or Superman more. I know the TV show in the 50's split the Kents with Ma alive and Pa dead, I don't recall if the serial gave us that much detail (or even how much of the origin was covered).

[Clark_Kent]

The last names differ by a single letter. Getting them confused when you are typing is no more difficult than any other typo, even if you know which is which.

It definitely comes across as the person not knowing the difference. And when it's done multiple times, it's no longer a typo. I just think it's funny when fans of a character can't get the famous actors name right, that's all. There's no reason to get them "confused".

[Ascended]

A few thoughts.

The differences between pre- and post-Crisis usually aren't as big as we make them out to be. To a large degree, outside of a few exceptions like the Kents (big difference between alive and dead) a lot of the differences you only see in the details. I'm as guilty as anyone of drawing lines in the sand, but if we're all being really honest, most of the major differences really are somewhat blurry. At most you could look at the more Clark-centric elements of post-Crisis and write them off as a continuation of Clark Kent becoming more important through the Bronze Age (when he started working as a news anchor and more spotlight was put on his civilian life, etc).

But I think it's a fallacy to make it "either pre-Crisis or post-." Why not something different? A new take on the character. Hell, that's not even an original idea; a whole lot of Birthright was fairly unique to Super-mythos, and the current era also seems to mix, borrow, or ignore things we used to consider strictly one or the other. Let's be honest, the Silver Age ideal where "Clark" was sort of a sociological experiment Superman conducted, as well as the "Clark is who I am" mindset that began post-Crisis, are both rather limited, out-dated ideas and writers today tend to take a more complicated, nuanced approach that is a little bit of both but also neither.

I mean, anything you do with Superman has probably been done already. One Kent dead, both, neither, etc. It's all been done. So if you build a Superman out of used parts you're going to end up with some combination of pre- and post-Crisis stuff. But the whole is not just the sum of its parts, nor is the character limited to previous visions. I say instead of picking one version from the past or trying to mix those two.....why not just forget about the split entirely, and make a Superman that feels like Superman but isn't a slave to any past era.

[Vordan]

I have a question? How is superman tas strictly post crisis? In tas there is no mention of him being a jock as far as i remember. He had met the legion as a kid. His fortress is something he built with his own hand(no giant keys though) by adapting and collecting technology from his adventures. He also had to beat the crap out of brainiac to get the records,memories and data of his home planets and other planets.his power level is strictly golden age. Clark kent winks like golden age guy. There is nothing concrete said about who he is, whether he is clark kent or superman.

The only post crisis element is ma and pa being alive. Supergirl being non kryptonIan. Supergirl thing is different here than both post crisis and pre crisis. Supergirl is from a colony of Krypton from same solar system. He doesn't act overtly clumsy. But, hides in plane site even tells lois he is superman disguised as clark kent. Kent values are there. But, kent. Those Values should be important in both pre and post crisis.

Strictly speaking TAS Supes is a mix of Pre and Post elements but I would say overall the show heavily draws on Post Crisis. I’m thinking of the “Late Great Mr. Kent” episode which shows that Superman sees himself as Clark first and Superman second. That to me says that the core of the character takes from the Post Crisis take. And of course there’s the whole CEO Lex Luthor which is a Post Crisis take. In JL though they did go more Pre Crisis with Lex, making him rely more on his brains than his wealth.

[superduperman]

Strictly speaking TAS Supes is a mix of Pre and Post elements but I would say overall the show heavily draws on Post Crisis. I’m thinking of the “Late Great Mr. Kent” episode which shows that Superman sees himself as Clark first and Superman second. That to me says that the core of the character takes from the Post Crisis take. And of course there’s the whole CEO Lex Luthor which is a Post Crisis take. In JL though they did go more Pre Crisis with Lex, making him rely more on his brains than his wealth.

It was definitely based on the post-Crisis more than anything else. Other than the Phantom Zone, I can't really think of any pre-Crisis elements it had. Even Jor-El and Lara looked like the Byrne versions. Keep in mind, DC had a real stick up their butts about making sure that versions in other media also lined up with the post-Crisis version. To be honest, I'm kind of surprised that they signed off on the Phantom Zone.