"Classic superman"

[manwhohaseverything]

I recently ran into a thread. (https://community.cbr.com/showthread...e-about-Batman)
where the discussion was whether morrison's superman was superman at all.There i found insinuations that goldenage superman was too aggressive and too "man of action" to be superman. This made me rather uncomfortable. This is siegel and shuster's superman .That question lead to the discussion on dceu superman as well. My question is,
has the post crisis superman and donner superman left such an impact that we find anything different jarring, even the original golden age take?
How much of it is superficial ? For example the trunks debate.
Is the impact detrimental to the character?
If so, how much?
What version of the character do you think is the "classic superman" or you can say your favourite version ?
If you are a new or postcrisis fan, are you familiar with older takes and differences with superman you grew up with?
What is your opinion on the "classic" superman or the not my superman debate itself(i mean it's tiring) ?

[Jon Clark]

I have more problem with people trying to make Superman an amorphous term that covers everything.

If 20 people can sit in a room working quietly and independently to come up with 20 unique characters and yet you can argue every one of them is Superman- I seriously cannot understand you.

I can vaguely understand the mindset that can see Adam West and Christian bale as both being "A" Batman. But too many Superman fans seem to use that logic to argue that everything using the name Superman is equal. As if Action #1 (1938), the wackiest 1950's/60's stories, the movie seriels, the George Reeves take, Bob Holliday's Broadway run, the guy in "Who took the Super out of Superman", the Donner film, the Lester film, Smallville, Lois & Clark … are all equally the same guy with none of them possibly getting stuff wrong.

Siegel and Shuster were evolving the concept from 1932's evil mental dictator through his Action #1 debut and into the stories they got published. So while the basics were there by Action #1 there were some things not fully formed. It's possible that Superman's more violent ways in the early stories were not something crucial to the character. Superman as a bully on the side of good, isn't something I'd list as a defining trait of the character. So I don't think having his creators as author/artist makes it any more valid than later works, though I will say that stuff that shows up in their stories and is still a defining trait by 1948 hold more weight than stuff introduce post-2010.

For me I'd say that Superman is a concept largely defined by the 1950's and 1960's. I'm not saying I don't have fondness for other tales or that there aren't things I'd leave out. Just that if you took every Superman story written between 1950 and 1970 and used them to create a blue print (stuff that shows up often stays, stuff that is used in a single issue and then forgotten or contradicted isn't counted) then those traits are the "common" Superman and the further you move from them the less valid your version.

[Korath]

For me, while I really can't like (or even outright hate some of those depictions), it's clear that the "classic" Superman is the one molded around the old movies, All-Star Superman and the like. The original take, while really interesting as an actual Champion of the Oppressed instead of Defender of the Status-Quo that he has turned into (because, let's face it, even in Bendis's run, he isn't doing **** to change the world for the better by getting ride of the corrupt and inept trappings of our current Western society and culture - then again, he IS married to a journalist, and they rarely if ever want the world to change anyway, at least those as high profile as Lois Lane).

The only Superman I love and truly care about was the 2011-2016 Supes, warts and all. Then there is Bendis, because while the character is not really my cup of tea, the universe around him is fleshed out enough to be interesting. But the many controversies regarding his run make clear that his isn't the classic Superman either, despite his undies on the outside.

[manwhohaseverything]

For me, while I really can't like (or even outright hate some of those depictions), it's clear that the "classic" Superman is the one molded around the old movies, All-Star Superman and the like. The original take, while really interesting as an actual Champion of the Oppressed instead of Defender of the Status-Quo that he has turned into (because, let's face it, even in Bendis's run, he isn't doing **** to change the world for the better by getting ride of the corrupt and inept trappings of our current Western society and culture - then again, he IS married to a journalist, and they rarely if ever want the world to change anyway, at least those as high profile as Lois Lane).

The only Superman I love and truly care about was the 2011-2016 Supes, warts and all. Then there is Bendis, because while the character is not really my cup of tea, the universe around him is fleshed out enough to be interesting. But the many controversies regarding his run make clear that his isn't the classic Superman either, despite his undies on the outside.

Do you mean the live action movies or the animated stuff? All star superman is basically an alternative ending to silverage superman like " whatever happened to the man of tomorrow" . Donners superman is his own original take with elements taken from the old. But, i don't think donner superman really qualifies as silverage or all star superman. Donners superman was really original and different at the time. So, yeah! They are different.

[Jon Clark]

Do you mean the live action movies or the animated stuff? All star superman is basically an alternative ending to silverage superman like " whatever happened to the man of tomorrow" . Donners superman is his own original take with elements taken from the old. But, i don't think donner superman really qualifies as silverage or all star superman. Donners superman was really original and different at the time. So, yeah! They are different.

There's different like "Jor-El designed the Fortress in the movies but not the comics" and different like "Superman in 1938 wouldn't have given Lois the same interview on her balcony". I think Korath is lumping the general attitude toward the world Superman shows in the movies with the Silver Age take and the attitude shown in later stories like All-Star or the 1986 Legends mini. Or even the over-the-top DKR where Superman is representing the US government against Batman's self-determined crusade,

To him the 1938 Superman is radically different in his willingness to defy the government and TPTB. The classic Superman is more interested in keeping the peace and supporting the status quo than in rooting out corruption and inequality.

[manwhohaseverything]

There's different like "Jor-El designed the Fortress in the movies but not the comics" and different like "Superman in 1938 wouldn't have given Lois the same interview on her balcony". I think Korath is lumping the general attitude toward the world Superman shows in the movies with the Silver Age take and the attitude shown in later stories like All-Star or the 1986 Legends mini. Or even the over-the-top DKR where Superman is representing the US government against Batman's self-determined crusade,

To him the 1938 Superman is radically different in his willingness to defy the government and TPTB. The classic Superman is more interested in keeping the peace and supporting the status quo than in rooting out corruption and inequality.

So, all the later takes on that remotely support the status quo atleast in his mind is the same. So, the version's from the 50's to 2011, And after the Rebirth are all the same for him

[Korath]

There's different like "Jor-El designed the Fortress in the movies but not the comics" and different like "Superman in 1938 wouldn't have given Lois the same interview on her balcony". I think Korath is lumping the general attitude toward the world Superman shows in the movies with the Silver Age take and the attitude shown in later stories like All-Star or the 1986 Legends mini. Or even the over-the-top DKR where Superman is representing the US government against Batman's self-determined crusade,

To him the 1938 Superman is radically different in his willingness to defy the government and TPTB. The classic Superman is more interested in keeping the peace and supporting the status quo than in rooting out corruption and inequality.

Basically that.

Also, when it comes to huge comics characters, I don't think that the "classic" take can be the original, only the most popular among readers.

[W1bowo]

For me, while I really can't like (or even outright hate some of those depictions), it's clear that the "classic" Superman is the one molded around the old movies, All-Star Superman and the like. The original take, while really interesting as an actual Champion of the Oppressed instead of Defender of the Status-Quo that he has turned into (because, let's face it, even in Bendis's run, he isn't doing **** to change the world for the better by getting ride of the corrupt and inept trappings of our current Western society and culture - then again, he IS married to a journalist, and they rarely if ever want the world to change anyway, at least those as high profile as Lois Lane).

The only Superman I love and truly care about was the 2011-2016 Supes, warts and all. Then there is Bendis, because while the character is not really my cup of tea, the universe around him is fleshed out enough to be interesting. But the many controversies regarding his run make clear that his isn't the classic Superman either, despite his undies on the outside.

+1

[manwhohaseverything]

I do have to ask though, is late 30's and 40's or tshirt superman take inferior to the "classic" take? For me, it isn't. As matter of fact, it is the opposite for me. It's funny now i am beginning to realise that i prefer the older take. I mean, i used to think i liked the preflashpoint superman(birthright version. Byrne reboot was blah! For me) . I mean, i started with new52. I didn't like johns justice league or the superman in it. I loved morrison's superman. The only thing that kept me around . Overall it was blah! For me. So i decided to read the olderstuff, famous ones first. I particularly loved alan moore superman stories. During which time the lois and clark returned. I was thrilled and loved that book more that new52 books at the time. Especially, jon became my favourite. Since, i had affinity for superboy whether it's clark or jon. Conner is great. But i only like the young justice version. Rebirth was fantastic for me. Now, i realise that i loved this version of rebirth superman because he was a dad to jon. Now, with Bendis's taking that away. I have began to realise i am simply bored with him.
I think morrison's superman is very much the best take for superman this decade for me. I liked American alien.

[The World]

You have to remember it takes effort to read beyond the modern day and look for the old stuff. Most people are fairly passive readers and just do surface level dives into material. For an 80 year old character like Superman being told you have to read back decades to get a real understanding of the character probably is a massive turnoff. I was once like that, but the older readers from the Pre-Crisis days use to hype up Pre-Crisis Superman so much that one day I bought a Superman Archive Collection #1 which had a collection of Superman's earliest adventures and I instantly got why they liked that old guy so much and understood a little of their disdain for the modern guy but I didn't hate him and I still don't. Mainly I was dissapointed the energy and passion of the Golden Age never got to make it to the modern day.

The idea that the guy thinks he know more about Supes than Morrison is pretty funny though.

I do have to ask though, is late 30's and 40's or tshirt superman take inferior to the "classic" take? For me, it isn't. As matter of fact, it is the opposite for me. It's funny now i am beginning to realise that i prefer the older take. I mean, i used to think i liked the preflashpoint superman(birthright version. Byrne reboot was blah! For me) . I mean, i started with new52. I didn't like johns justice league or the superman in it. I loved morrison's superman. The only thing that kept me around . Overall it was blah! For me. So i decided to read the olderstuff, famous ones first. I particularly loved alan moore superman stories. During which time the lois and clark returned. I was thrilled and loved that book more that new52 books at the time. Especially, jon became my favourite. Since, i had affinity for superboy whether it's clark or jon. Conner is great. But i only like the young justice version. Rebirth was fantastic for me. Now, i realise that i loved this version of rebirth superman because he was a dad to jon. Now, with Bendis's taking that away. I have began to realise i am simply bored with him.
I think morrison's superman is very much the best take for superman this decade for me. I liked American alien. But landis himself wasn't like his superman.

Nah there's nothing superior about "classic" Superman. Ask yourself how many people want to be an assertive man of action and how many people want to be a naive farmboy at heart. Pretty much no one wants to be Post-Crisis Superman but everyone is still trying to chase the laurels of Pre-Crisis Superman.

The danger with a character like Superman is that you can slowly begin to miss the point and for the most part the modern day folks basically have. Much of the discussion around Superman these days is shipping and being a farmer, the guy who fights for the little guy only lives on in those of us that read about that sort of thing. People react negatively to things like 30' 40's Supes because they aren't use to a guy that spends more time on the move helping people than he spends running his mouth. They want a Jesus character to give them a relaxing sermon rather than the modern day Hercules Superman is suppose to be. Hoechlin's big claim to fame is getting decked by his cousin and meekly accepting it like the whipped dog that he is and people praise him for it because that's where they want him to stay in the dirt where he won't be a problem for them.

Superman's fanbase needs wisen up and start fighting to keep a hold of the things the Pre-Crisis writers built into the character because the other characters are more than happy to relieve the character of them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

For me, while I really can't like (or even outright hate some of those depictions), it's clear that the "classic" Superman is the one molded around the old movies, All-Star Superman and the like. The original take, while really interesting as an actual Champion of the Oppressed instead of Defender of the Status-Quo that he has turned into (because, let's face it, even in Bendis's run, he isn't doing **** to change the world for the better by getting ride of the corrupt and inept trappings of our current Western society and culture - then again, he IS married to a journalist, and they rarely if ever want the world to change anyway, at least those as high profile as Lois Lane).

If you're saying Superman's a bootlicker, I agree.

[Powerboy]

For me, while I really can't like (or even outright hate some of those depictions), it's clear that the "classic" Superman is the one molded around the old movies, All-Star Superman and the like. The original take, while really interesting as an actual Champion of the Oppressed instead of Defender of the Status-Quo that he has turned into (because, let's face it, even in Bendis's run, he isn't doing **** to change the world for the better by getting ride of the corrupt and inept trappings of our current Western society and culture - then again, he IS married to a journalist, and they rarely if ever want the world to change anyway, at least those as high profile as Lois Lane).

The only Superman I love and truly care about was the 2011-2016 Supes, warts and all. Then there is Bendis, because while the character is not really my cup of tea, the universe around him is fleshed out enough to be interesting. But the many controversies regarding his run make clear that his isn't the classic Superman either, despite his undies on the outside.

That's a good point. I prefer "Champion of the Weak and Oppressed" to "Defender of the Status Quo" and I think that is also a huge part of the problem. As much as I love the George Reeves show and the Christopher Reeve movies (the first one, anyway) and the Silver Age, they are largely about Superman posing with American flags and being buddies with presidents. I think that in a Post-Watergate world, Superman has never broken free of that image as the defender of the status quo no matter that some writers move him drastically away from that.

My favorite was the GA Superman who took profiteers into war zones, told corrupt politicians to resign or he'd personally take them into a third world country and leave them there and see how they like it when they had to live under those conditions, a Superman who tried to change things for the better. Now, I am well aware that the original "Squadron Supreme" confronted that issue with the fact that he wasn't changing people and any changes he made were meaningless because they would only last as long as he was personally enforcing them.
But trying to inspire people is well and good but not unless their is a direction to that inspiration rather than a vagueness.

I think one of the problems with Superman was defined nicely if unintentionally in "Superman Returns" They go out of their way about how mankind needs a savior and they have that scene where he's floating in orbit listening to the cries of humanity like he was a god. So he must be hearing the cries of starving children. But he just keeps floating. He must hear the cries of women being beaten and of corrupt businessmen and politicians saying things that are for their good to the detriment of the vast majority. He does nothing. Oh, but wait. A bank robbery. Yeah, to that, he responds. That's the big deal that the world is crying out to a savior for? Yup, defender of the status quo. He's unfortunately gotten so big and such an ideal that he can't live up to it, at least not in a shared universe.

[Crabble]

I've no idea on who exactly a "classic Superman" should be. We've all enjoyed the various adventures the big guy went through alongside his charming cast, no matter the decade or how old we were. I just look at this franchise with the same happiness/appreciation like I do with the Godzilla movies. Warts and all.

[Crabble]

What should an ideal Superman story be focused on anyways?

There's the triangle for two (Clark/Lois/Superman) and the potential to conclude it with a romantic relationship or staying platonic.
There's space adventures with Superman.
There's potential in him solving a problem (w/ wits or strength).
There's different ways for him to interact with an individual, depending on their age (civilian, villain, adoptive family, Superman family or Daily Planet cast), which means more problems to solve and sides of Superman or Clark to explore.
There's different types of conflict you could do, such as the classic Man against Man or Man against Self, Nature or Society.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

I have more problem with people trying to make Superman an amorphous term that covers everything.

If 20 people can sit in a room working quietly and independently to come up with 20 unique characters and yet you can argue every one of them is Superman- I seriously cannot understand you.

I can vaguely understand the mindset that can see Adam West and Christian bale as both being "A" Batman. But too many Superman fans seem to use that logic to argue that everything using the name Superman is equal. As if Action #1 (1938), the wackiest 1950's/60's stories, the movie seriels, the George Reeves take, Bob Holliday's Broadway run, the guy in "Who took the Super out of Superman", the Donner film, the Lester film, Smallville, Lois & Clark … are all equally the same guy with none of them possibly getting stuff wrong.

Siegel and Shuster were evolving the concept from 1932's evil mental dictator through his Action #1 debut and into the stories they got published. So while the basics were there by Action #1 there were some things not fully formed. It's possible that Superman's more violent ways in the early stories were not something crucial to the character. Superman as a bully on the side of good, isn't something I'd list as a defining trait of the character. So I don't think having his creators as author/artist makes it any more valid than later works, though I will say that stuff that shows up in their stories and is still a defining trait by 1948 hold more weight than stuff introduce post-2010.

For me I'd say that Superman is a concept largely defined by the 1950's and 1960's. I'm not saying I don't have fondness for other tales or that there aren't things I'd leave out. Just that if you took every Superman story written between 1950 and 1970 and used them to create a blue print (stuff that shows up often stays, stuff that is used in a single issue and then forgotten or contradicted isn't counted) then those traits are the "common" Superman and the further you move from them the less valid your version.

Exactly this! Thank you!!