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

[SiegePerilous02]

Btw, with Batman, it's just the opposite. Bruce Wayne died the night his parents were killed. He's been Batman since. Bruce Wayne is the disguise. That works for Batman, but in my honest opinion, doesn't work for Superman. Make him Clark, and bring the Kents back as well.

That trend needs to die for Batman as well. I think he's a much less interesting character when he's just pure Batman all the time and everything about the Bruce persona is a fake. Much like Superman, he has projects two personas (Batman and the exaggerated public playboy Bruce), but neither one is the 100% whole person. Remove the humanity of Bruce Wayne, and you get Bat-Jerk, the worst iteration of the character.

[Jim Kelly]

If Bruce thinks that he died on the night his parents were killed and he's been Batman ever since, are we really supposed to take this as objective truth? Surely the writer isn't presenting Bruce as a reliable narrator. Anyone suffering from PTSD, as Bruce is, doesn't fully understand their own trauma. We should have enough insight to see that the character is lying to himself.

We know that it's demonstrably not true. Bruce was not killed. Many of us have suffered the deaths of loved ones and that changes us, but the reason we have trauma is because our identity is invested in those people we've lost. The fact that Bruce mourns his parents, and is driven to avenge them, shows that he is their son who loves them. A Batman that was newly born would have no connection to Thomas and Martha Wayne. It's Bruce Wayne who is suffering PTSD, not the fictional persona that he's made up to hide his emotions.

Bruce Wayne is Bruce Wayne for the same reason that Clark Kent is Clark Kent--their family, friends and experiences have shaped who they are.

Clark Kent has adopted the pose of Superman, so he can be a hero. But to be Superman, he has to hide certain aspects of his character. When I listen to the radio show or watch the 1960s cartoons, I feel like the real person is in Bud Collyer's Clark Kent voice, while his Superman voice sounds too harsh and cold--he must be putting on an act. Yet, because Clark has to sacrifice his personal relationships for the sake of being Superman, his friends and co-workers are confounded by his actions. The only way they can explain it to themselves is that Clark is a weasel (if he's not Superman, which he keeps proving that he's not).

The George Reeves Clark Kent is clearly a heroic person--a lot of that comes through in his conversations with Inspector Henderson--and he's often trusted to handle serious responsibilities. If Clark wasn't regarded as a strong person, he wouldn't engender such trust. Yet he frustrates Lois Lane, as well as Perry White and even Jimmy Olsen, who are provoked by his unreliabilty--and will often make spiteful remarks right to his face.

Nevertheless, I just can't see any other option for Clark--like Peter Parker, his job as a super-hero gets in the way of his personal happiness--and people are bound to have bad opinions about him. A writer who tries to spare Clark these sour experiences in his private life is avoiding those consequences that the double life creates.

[Ascended]

Kal-L right now would be superfluous. Current Superman IS the older, veteran Superman with a family now. If anything if we got a secondary Superman it should be a young one.

I friggin adore Kal-L and I agree. Current Superman is very much like L now and there'd be far too much overlap to make having both of them worthwhile.

I'd have agreed wholeheartedly during the New52, since that Superman was considerably younger and in a very different place. But now it'd largely be redundant.

That trend needs to die for Batman as well. I think he's a much less interesting character when he's just pure Batman all the time and everything about the Bruce persona is a fake. Much like Superman, he has projects two personas (Batman and the exaggerated public playboy Bruce), but neither one is the 100% whole person. Remove the humanity of Bruce Wayne, and you get Bat-Jerk, the worst iteration of the character.

I actually love the "Bruce died with his parents" version. I think its a fascinating psychological angle to explore and I like him broken. But Batman is far from my favorite character too, so what do I know?

[Ascended]

I like this post.

If Bruce thinks that he died on the night his parents were killed and he's been Batman ever since, are we really supposed to take this as objective truth? Surely the writer isn't presenting Bruce as a reliable narrator. Anyone suffering from PTSD, as Bruce is, doesn't fully understand their own trauma. We should have enough insight to see that the character is lying to himself.

I agree. Which is why I like the "Bruce died" approach. Bruce's ability to lie to himself is a great human foil. It's not that Bruce is really "dead" it's that Bruce *thinks* he is.

Nevertheless, I just can't see any other option for Clark--like Peter Parker, his job as a super-hero gets in the way of his personal happiness--and people are bound to have bad opinions about him. A writer who tries to spare Clark these sour experiences in his private life is avoiding those consequences that the double life creates.

I also think "Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter" provides a great way for Clark to lose. We all love to see our hero win at life, but we *need* to see him struggle and lose, too. And Superman can only lose so much.....and those loses don't usually last. He gets knocked out by Metallo.....but we all know he'll win round 2. The "mild mannered" disguise is a way for him to sacrifice and lose on a much more resonant, human level that people can relate to and sympathize with....and that's the stuff that makes us love the hero, not their feats of power. Clark's problems make it a "life" instead of a fairy tale.

I very much believe that the answer to "SUPERman or superMAN" is that it's not either/or, it's a spectrum; both far ends (the Superman the public sees and the Clark the Planet interns see) are made up of as many falsehoods and exaggerations as truths, and the character moves through that spectrum based on the moment.

[bat39]

If Bruce thinks that he died on the night his parents were killed and he's been Batman ever since, are we really supposed to take this as objective truth? Surely the writer isn't presenting Bruce as a reliable narrator. Anyone suffering from PTSD, as Bruce is, doesn't fully understand their own trauma. We should have enough insight to see that the character is lying to himself.

We know that it's demonstrably not true. Bruce was not killed. Many of us have suffered the deaths of loved ones and that changes us, but the reason we have trauma is because our identity is invested in those people we've lost. The fact that Bruce mourns his parents, and is driven to avenge them, shows that he is their son who loves them. A Batman that was newly born would have no connection to Thomas and Martha Wayne. It's Bruce Wayne who is suffering PTSD, not the fictional persona that he's made up to hide his emotions.

Bruce Wayne is Bruce Wayne for the same reason that Clark Kent is Clark Kent--their family, friends and experiences have shaped who they are.

Clark Kent has adopted the pose of Superman, so he can be a hero. But to be Superman, he has to hide certain aspects of his character. When I listen to the radio show or watch the 1960s cartoons, I feel like the real person is in Bud Collyer's Clark Kent voice, while his Superman voice sounds too harsh and cold--he must be putting on an act. Yet, because Clark has to sacrifice his personal relationships for the sake of being Superman, his friends and co-workers are confounded by his actions. The only way they can explain it to themselves is that Clark is a weasel (if he's not Superman, which he keeps proving that he's not).

The George Reeves Clark Kent is clearly a heroic person--a lot of that comes through in his conversations with Inspector Henderson--and he's often trusted to handle serious responsibilities. If Clark wasn't regarded as a strong person, he wouldn't engender such trust. Yet he frustrates Lois Lane, as well as Perry White and even Jimmy Olsen, who are provoked by his unreliabilty--and will often make spiteful remarks right to his face.

Nevertheless, I just can't see any other option for Clark--like Peter Parker, his job as a super-hero gets in the way of his personal happiness--and people are bound to have bad opinions about him. A writer who tries to spare Clark these sour experiences in his private life is avoiding those consequences that the double life creates.

Agree with you on the Batman bit.

Frankly, I don't think its as much of an issue now as it was 15 years ago. I think the whole "Batman is real, Bruce Wayne is just an act" thing was a phase during what some of us call the 'Bat-jerk' era of the character. And, in-universe, it was a phase that the character went through, which is perfectly understandable, and provides rich psychological fodder to the character. But I think that's very much in the past now.

The most iconic Batman adaptations tend to give a fair bit of importance to Bruce Wayne. The Nolanverse in particular established that the character Christian Bale played was Bruce Wayne. That's even how he was credited. 'Batman' was a symbol that Bruce created to inspire the people of Gotham and shock them out of their apathy. Arguably, TDKR ends Bruce Wayne's story, but Batman is an everlasting symbol who's story continued with John Blake taking the mantle. I've always admired Nolan's approach to the identity question, and I think he really codified what, to some extent, is followed in the comics as well - there is the 'real' Bruce Wayne that those closest to him know, and he plays the part of the billionaire playboy, and the vigilante Batman.

Of course, in the comics, Batman is often depicted as being a bit more 'real' than in Nolan's 'grounded' take. And I think that makes sense. After over a decade of being Batman, and letting the crusade consume his life, it makes sense that Bruce would start to believe that he is Batman and its not just a costumed alter ego. And during periods of time when Bruce is severely traumatized and emotionally closed off, he believes that only Batman is real and 'Bruce Wayne' is just a false identity. But that's not really true, and when he comes back from the brink, he realizes that and re-embraces the Bruce Wayne side of himself. There's a Gotham Knights one-shot, '24x7', which has a beautiful representation of such a realization.

That said, Superman's case is in one respect quiet different from Batman's. With Batman, he's born as Bruce Wayne, his entire motivation to fight crime stems from what happened to Bruce Wayne's parents, and he lives the life of the heir to the Wayne legacy. There are some interpretations which suggest that Bruce's career as Batman is in fact a way to continue his parent's philantrophy and leadership of the city.

But with Superman, Clark Kent is not his only viable 'true identity'. He has a whole identity and heritage as Kal-El of Krypton. So it is possible, as writers did in the Silver Age, to construct a version of Superman where 'Clark Kent' is a fake identity, because Superman does have another real identity as Kal-El. Not so with Batman, where, if you claim that 'Bruce Wayne' is fake, then you're basically left with a costume...

[SiegePerilous02]

I actually love the "Bruce died with his parents" version. I think its a fascinating psychological angle to explore and I like him broken. But Batman is far from my favorite character too, so what do I know?

I think it can be a fascinating angle to explore in some stories, usually the darker continuity light ones. I'm thinking Morrison's Arkham Asylum in particular, where it works especially well with the "Bruce is an unreliable narrator and kind of a hot mess" angle Jim Kelly mentions above.

But more often than not I feel like it just makes him a one note grouch that's is hard to enjoy. I prefer Batman to be fun. Still dark and mysterious and capable of sliding into dark stories, but still an adventurer who lives a batshit crazy life and has a bit of a blast while doing it. Plus, Bat-God when we have to have him is easier to stomach when he's not being an asshole to everybody.

[objectivewatcher2013]

A friendly reminder to those who've forgotten lol.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceca1JCRQbA


He's 100% Batman 24/7.

[Jim Kelly]

I just imagine everyone in the Satellite Sanctuary rolling their eyes when Bruce says this kind of thing yet again, at the monthly meeting.

[Kuwagaton]

Gotham's bitter cauldron is extremely popular. Popular enough to seize virtually any Superman discussion lol.

It's not as though having "Batman" as the dominant perspective really has to make him into his more pessimistic forms. Even with creamer, like the large majority of everything before NML, "Bruce" was a prompt by necessity and many of the different looks he gave were tied to how the crimefighter would respond to a given interaction or situation. Adam West as Bruce Wayne was extremely goofy but even then he was still just a naked Batman. It's pretty easy to have Batman and Superman simultaneously occupy the same space of identity, but I suppose people don't think that's very fun.

Since Kal L and the New 52 Superman came up as alternates, I have to say that the similarities are neat but not as deep as the New 52 similarities with other versions. I just can't hear Bud Collyer there.

[Jim Kelly]

Given that ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is one of the most popular versions of Superman and that's a Superman very much in the tradition of the old school Man of Tomorrow, I don't see how you can argue that people are being nostalgic for something in the very distant past. It's been about ten years since ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, which is a long time but not that long. If we had to have two Supermen, I would take ALL-STAR as one and family guy as the other.

[Kuwagaton]

I'd trust Morrison to follow up his iteration if he wanted but even he would be giving a seasoned Superman who has advanced toward Lois and his own legacy as an alternative to something similar.

For the editorial blindsides throughout and overwhelming popularity of the earlier stage, I think the post Morrison New 52 Superman is worth revisiting. I'll never forget how poor Diggle just wasn't a big enough draw for protest over his ousting. At a time when everyone knew what Berganza had been doing on and off the clock to creators and others. We'll probably never find out the truth.

[manwhohaseverything]

Given that ALL-STAR SUPERMAN is one of the most popular versions of Superman and that's a Superman very much in the tradition of the old school Man of Tomorrow, I don't see how you can argue that people are being nostalgic for something in the very distant past. It's been about ten years since ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, which is a long time but not that long. If we had to have two Supermen, I would take ALL-STAR as one and family guy as the other.

All star is great and all. But i want more American alien superman. I want a millennial superman,if we are getting another Supes.

[Jim Kelly]

Isn't the Rebirth Superman a millennial Superman--or if not him, then his son?

[The World]

The point of having two Supermen would be to have a Superman free that was able to embody all the stuff that had been shrugged off by main Superman.The modern Superman is there to prove he's not like the guy the preceded him, he's not weird, he's not strange, he's a perfectly average guy who happens to be able to bench press a mountain. That would free up the other guy for all the weird and strange things the otherside want to reject. One side gets the run of the mill american childhood, the other was a time travelling superhero as a kid that was friends with the LOSH. If one is married to Lois then the other one is free to not be. If one doesn't want to rock the boat, then the other one is perfectly free to rock it all he wants.

I picked Kal-L because Post-Crisis Superman is never going to be Pre-Crisis Superman, his supporters don't want him to be. N52 Superman is, lets be honest, a compromise between Pre-Crisis and Post Crisis Superman and the Post-Crisis guys crowed forever whenever they encountered things they weren't familiar with even if it predated Post-Crisis they still complained. That guy will forever be stuck as a kind of a weird off shoot of Post-Crisis Superman that those guys think is edgy it'd be much better for them to encounter many of those same characteristics and then some cranked up to 11 within a version of Superman that predates the guy the call classic. Also you can still do the "guy with no universe thing" since his got destroyed in COIE plus with modern Superman married you can dump that story element in Kal-L. Plus that guy deserves a redemption run anyways.

[manwhohaseverything]

Isn't the Rebirth Superman a millennial Superman--or if not him, then his son?

No, his son is definitely post millennial. Rebirth superman maybe a bit older to be a millennial.