"Classic superman"

[Korath]

I can't speak for Zeeguy91 (I hope I'm not misspelling your name here!) but I'm pretty sure he has read more older comics than me (I didn't read the GA Superman comics, or any comics beyond the ones in the Aquaman and Batman Anthologies or whatever their names are, the anniversary specials) and I'm also pretty sure he doesn't like Clark being a mopping carpet for other to punch.


Just to clarify.

[manwhohaseverything]

I have an extreme point of view in that I think the only authentic version of some comic book characters is what the original creators produced. There are some cases where a character only came together through the group efforts of many different people--someone like Jimmy Olsen or most of the Legion of Super-Heroes for example--but Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Plastic Man, we know who created them and it wasn't a big group of people, it was one or two people. So what those people created is the authentic character.

I reject the argument that these characters are malleable and therefore anyone can add to them or change them and they are still the true character. To me that was a self-serving argument from the publishers that was used to undermine the creative rights of people they didn't want to recognize and pay royalties to.

Now, creators are free to develop and change their own concept. Peanuts developed over the life of Charles Schulz--and everything he created is equally authentic. Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan starts out as a much more grounded character in TARZAN OF THE APES than what he becomes as ERB introduces more fantastical realms for the Apeman to visit. There are some Sherlock Holmes stories that are better than others--but as long as Arthur Conan Doyle wrote them, all his stories are the real deal.

So if you look at the Siegel and Shuster Superman, you have about ten years worth of stories. One might want to split hairs and say that only the first two years of Superman is the character that they really meant to create--and as other writers and artists came on board and the editor had more control, that authenticity was diminished--but no author has complete autonomy over his work, there are always changes for editors and publishers. So for me everything from 1938 to 1947 is the original and authentic Superman. And then, given that Jerry Siegel returned to Superman a decade later, that work has some claim to authenticity, as well.

Bill Finger and Bob Kane had Batman for about twenty-five years, during which time there were a lot of changes. But I think all of that is the authentic Batman. The authentic Wonder Woman died with William Moulton Marston. And the authentic Plastic Man died with Jack Cole.

Now "classic" is different. I think of everything DC did before Crisis as the classic DC. And the classic Superman is probably best represented in the 1960s. But I wouldn't say that classic Superman is entirely the authentic Superman--too many other creators have changed him and added to him by then.

I agree with you. Especially, on the first 10 years being authentic version. I feel the same way. The thing that made me uncomfortable with the discussion is the claim that something that is clearly inspired from the authentic version of the character being rejected, in favour of the "classic" version. Because they claim it being not superman. It made me question whether i am really following superman at all. If what they claim to be "classic" version(for him it was the post crisis version) is so far away from the original vision or doesn't even have philosophy of the authentic character. Then is it realy superman. I felt like superman has become a literal "ship of theseus" that has been taken apart and given new parts. So much so that it has become a new-different ship that has nothing in common with the original.

[Vordan]

The “pop culture” idea of Superman is a mix of Silver Age Superman and Byrne Superman. He is literally invincible and can pull new powers out at will, he’s always morally in the right (even if he does some messed up things now and again), the Kents are alive (I find this one kind of funny and a testament to the influence of outside media), and “Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am” is his outlook on his identities.

In reality these are kind of outdated views. He’s been significantly powered down, he’s been repeatedly called out on the morality of everything from his no kill code to his secret identity to his “ability to inspire”, the Kents have been dead longer than they’ve been alive, and as someone working his way through Post Crisis Supes right now, he’s not really that different from early New 52 Supes. People forget that Byrne was also trying to channel Golden Age Supes in his reinvention, but it was channeled through the culture of Reagan’s America. Byrne Supes could be a cocky guy in his early years too, see his team up with Batman for proof. And for all the edgy accusations against New 52 Supes, Byrne Supes actually had a higher kill count. He killed Zod and the alternate world Kryptonians, and Doomsday. New 52 Supes killed Doomsday but he only killed Dr. Light because Atomica jabbed Kryptonite in his brain and otherwise he never deliberately took a life as far as I recall.

That said DC did Nuperman no favors with their godawful marketing and crappy new costume design. I’m content with the new Reborn version of Supes that we have. He hasn’t totally lost his edge and he seems like a good middle ground between Post Crisis and New 52. You should check out Dispenser of Truth’s Superman Masterposts on his Tumblr OP, he goes into detail on the reasons why New 52 Supes failed and the pros and cons of different Superman eras: http://davidmann95.tumblr.com/post/1...ill-off-new-52 I found his Byrne analysis really interesting. Don’t agree with all his opinions but he argues his point well.

Zack Snyder was perfectly positioned to change the way the world viewed Superman. People were hyped as hell for MoS and if it had had a better writer and director I think we could’ve had a new Golden Age for Supes. But he blew it and for the moment Supes is deep in the hole until WB decides to try again. Least we have the animated movies!

[manwhohaseverything]

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.

I agree on the part on bold. I mean strongman aspect of the character is dead. People look for inspiration towards goku for hitting the gym. It boggles my mind. I had a discussion with @agentz i believe. He told me that superman isn't an athlete or a strong man. He is more concerned about saving live. Which i agree. But, superman is a strongman at the core. So, ofcourse he would want to achieve his full potential in that regard. Ofcourse, that would have him compete with other strong dude atleast for the sportsman ship of it.I disagree on the farmer aspect, though.

[manwhohaseverything]

I can't speak for Zeeguy91 (I hope I'm not misspelling your name here!) but I'm pretty sure he has read more older comics than me (I didn't read the GA Superman comics, or any comics beyond the ones in the Aquaman and Batman Anthologies or whatever their names are, the anniversary specials) and I'm also pretty sure he doesn't like Clark being a mopping carpet for other to punch.


Just to clarify.

Have you seen Fleischer cartoons? It has a toned down version of the character. It is more of a spectacle with goldenage guy fighting robots and godzilla type monsters.

[manwhohaseverything]

The “pop culture” idea of Superman is a mix of Silver Age Superman and Byrne Superman. He is literally invincible and can pull new powers out at will, he’s always morally in the right (even if he does some messed up things now and again), the Kents are alive (I find this one kind of funny and a testament to the influence of outside media), and “Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am” is his outlook on his identities.

In reality these are kind of outdated views. He’s been significantly powered down, he’s been repeatedly called out on the morality of everything from his no kill code to his secret identity to his “ability to inspire”, the Kents have been dead longer than they’ve been alive, and as someone working his way through Post Crisis Supes right now, he’s not really that different from early New 52 Supes. People forget that Byrne was also trying to channel Golden Age Supes in his reinvention, but it was channeled through the culture of Reagan’s America. Byrne Supes could be a cocky guy in his early years too, see his team up with Batman for proof. And for all the edgy accusations against New 52 Supes, Byrne Supes actually had a higher kill count. He killed Zod and the alternate world Kryptonians, and Doomsday. New 52 Supes killed Doomsday but he only killed Dr. Light because Atomica jabbed Kryptonite in his brain and otherwise he never deliberately took a life as far as I recall.

That said DC did Nuperman no favors with their godawful marketing and crappy new costume design. I’m content with the new Reborn version of Supes that we have. He hasn’t totally lost his edge and he seems like a good middle ground between Post Crisis and New 52. You should check out Dispenser of Truth’s Superman Masterposts on his Tumblr OP, he goes into detail on the reasons why New 52 Supes failed and the pros and cons of different Superman eras: http://davidmann95.tumblr.com/post/1...ill-off-new-52 I found his Byrne analysis really interesting. Don’t agree with all his opinions but he argues his point well.

Zack Snyder was perfectly positioned to change the way the world viewed Superman. People were hyped as hell for MoS and if it had had a better writer and director I think we could’ve had a new Golden Age for Supes. But he blew it and for the moment Supes is deep in the hole until WB decides to try again. Least we have the animated movies!

I feel its more donner superman than silverage superman. Silverage superman was more wierd and had memories of his world stuff. His all encapsulating identity was that of kal el. Donner version had clark be his encapsulating identity like in the goldenage.silverage was smart enough to build a fortress on his own. He even made giant key. There are other differences as well. I just see donner as a more original take on the character with elements take from his predecessor.as i posted earlier. I see all star superman as more of silverage guy or atleast inspired by it.
That said, i agree with the rest.

[Vordan]

Oh yeah you’re totally right. The Donner films definitely had a huge impact on the Post-Crisis reboot, and still have an impact on Supes all the way up to the present day.

[Konja7]

I have an extreme point of view in that I think the only authentic version of some comic book characters is what the original creators produced. There are some cases where a character only came together through the group efforts of many different people--someone like Jimmy Olsen or most of the Legion of Super-Heroes for example--but Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Plastic Man, we know who created them and it wasn't a big group of people, it was one or two people. So what those people created is the authentic character.

I reject the argument that these characters are malleable and therefore anyone can add to them or change them and they are still the true character. To me that was a self-serving argument from the publishers that was used to undermine the creative rights of people they didn't want to recognize and pay royalties to.

Now, creators are free to develop and change their own concept. Peanuts developed over the life of Charles Schulz--and everything he created is equally authentic. Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan starts out as a much more grounded character in TARZAN OF THE APES than what he becomes as ERB introduces more fantastical realms for the Apeman to visit. There are some Sherlock Holmes stories that are better than others--but as long as Arthur Conan Doyle wrote them, all his stories are the real deal.

So if you look at the Siegel and Shuster Superman, you have about ten years worth of stories. One might want to split hairs and say that only the first two years of Superman is the character that they really meant to create--and as other writers and artists came on board and the editor had more control, that authenticity was diminished--but no author has complete autonomy over his work, there are always changes for editors and publishers. So for me everything from 1938 to 1947 is the original and authentic Superman. And then, given that Jerry Siegel returned to Superman a decade later, that work has some claim to authenticity, as well.

Bill Finger and Bob Kane had Batman for about twenty-five years, during which time there were a lot of changes. But I think all of that is the authentic Batman. The authentic Wonder Woman died with William Moulton Marston. And the authentic Plastic Man died with Jack Cole.

Now "classic" is different. I think of everything DC did before Crisis as the classic DC. And the classic Superman is probably best represented in the 1960s. But I wouldn't say that classic Superman is entirely the authentic Superman--too many other creators have changed him and added to him by then.

I understand your point.

However, the problem is we have around 70 years without the original version of Superman. So, many readers won't feel attachment to that version at all.

Not to mentiin that the original Superman would never return. I mean even if a pretty similar version to the original Superman appear, it wouldn't be product of his creators. So, according to your argument, it wouldn't be different than other versions of Superman after Siegel and Shuster stopped to write the character.

[bat39]

The “pop culture” idea of Superman is a mix of Silver Age Superman and Byrne Superman. He is literally invincible and can pull new powers out at will, he’s always morally in the right (even if he does some messed up things now and again), the Kents are alive (I find this one kind of funny and a testament to the influence of outside media), and “Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am” is his outlook on his identities.

In reality these are kind of outdated views. He’s been significantly powered down, he’s been repeatedly called out on the morality of everything from his no kill code to his secret identity to his “ability to inspire”, the Kents have been dead longer than they’ve been alive, and as someone working his way through Post Crisis Supes right now, he’s not really that different from early New 52 Supes. People forget that Byrne was also trying to channel Golden Age Supes in his reinvention, but it was channeled through the culture of Reagan’s America. Byrne Supes could be a cocky guy in his early years too, see his team up with Batman for proof. And for all the edgy accusations against New 52 Supes, Byrne Supes actually had a higher kill count. He killed Zod and the alternate world Kryptonians, and Doomsday. New 52 Supes killed Doomsday but he only killed Dr. Light because Atomica jabbed Kryptonite in his brain and otherwise he never deliberately took a life as far as I recall.

That said DC did Nuperman no favors with their godawful marketing and crappy new costume design. I’m content with the new Reborn version of Supes that we have. He hasn’t totally lost his edge and he seems like a good middle ground between Post Crisis and New 52. You should check out Dispenser of Truth’s Superman Masterposts on his Tumblr OP, he goes into detail on the reasons why New 52 Supes failed and the pros and cons of different Superman eras: http://davidmann95.tumblr.com/post/1...ill-off-new-52 I found his Byrne analysis really interesting. Don’t agree with all his opinions but he argues his point well.

Zack Snyder was perfectly positioned to change the way the world viewed Superman. People were hyped as hell for MoS and if it had had a better writer and director I think we could’ve had a new Golden Age for Supes. But he blew it and for the moment Supes is deep in the hole until WB decides to try again. Least we have the animated movies!

I think it comes down to the fact that the Silver Age and Byrne eras were both around for decades in some form or the other and had a lasting impact on other media adaptations - the Silver Age largely through the Donner movies (but also stuff like Superfriends and other cartoons), and Byrne largely through the DCAU, Lois & Clark, Smallville and even arguably the DCEU.

I think the needle had already started to move towards the Kents being alive with the Donner movie, where Martha stayed alive. And every subsequent adaptations has one or both of them alive. Power levels have tended to fluctuate but his actual powers have remained pretty stable. Bringing moral conflict to Superman is something which has started to become a recurring element, but I think its something that goes back and forth based on audience/reader perception. But in terms of identity, there's a definite shift in favor of Clark that has largely stayed constant over the last few decades.

[manwhohaseverything]

I understand your point.

However, the problem is we have around 70 years without the original version of Superman. So, many readers won't feel attachment to that version at all.

Not to mentiin that the original Superman would never return. I mean even if a pretty similar version to the original Superman appear, it wouldn't be product of his creators. So, according to your argument, it wouldn't be different than other versions of Superman after Siegel and Shuster stopped to write the character.

But, the issue is the core tone, philosophy, ethics and even parts personality of the character(like being man of action.he debuted in action comics ) . Not the other changes. Those changes happen. Heck! Siegel and shuster themselves would have changed some elements with time.but i think the core of the original should be there in any superman to be called superman. And morrison basically brought that with his superman.

Pardon me, i have began to see more the original superman in all might than even in current modern versions we have. Ofcourse, allmight is still more tame and believes in the system. Which is a stark comparison.but the world is different. allmight had basically build that system and finished his predecessors works of creating a more just society. I believe, allmight will break the law if it meant protecting the weak. If the structure he built had become a shackle for the weak and the oppressed .The core of the original superman is protecting the weak because its the right thing to do. We have to ask is the current or modern superman's motivation and ethics based on that?

[jetengine]

People keep saying they want Supes to change the world. That aint happening. Ever. Or if it is its an elseworld or rolled back quickly. If you want a strongman supes who smashes the system you end up with the endgame of DKR2 Supes

[Yoda]

What examples are there of the current or modern Superman not protecting the weak because it's the right thing to do? I guess I see this complaint so much, but it basically comes down to Superman not punching Batman for being mean to him or something.

What exactly does that look like with the "modern" Superman. Should he be demolishing credit card companies and destroying the insurance industry? Taking out Congress and replacing it with a new one? Restructuring the economy? Because that's Miracle Man basically. And both Moore and Gaiman weren't going to have that end pleasantly if it ever finishes. It's basically a benevolent dictatorship.

[jetengine]

What examples are there of the current or modern Superman not protecting the weak because it's the right thing to do? I guess I see this complaint so much, but it basically comes down to Superman not punching Batman for being mean to him or something.

What exactly does that look like with the "modern" Superman. Should he be demolishing credit card companies and destroying the insurance industry? Taking out Congress and replacing it with a new one? Restructuring the economy? Because that's Miracle Man basically. And both Moore and Gaiman weren't going to have that end pleasantly if it ever finishes. It's basically a benevolent dictatorship.

Its why Supes "sticks with the status quo" as people complain. He could restructure the world with ease. But its not his choice, he's not a conquerer.

[Kuwagaton]

Ah yes! The no kill rule. Breaking it, is the charge levied against man of steel movie. But didn't the byrne superman do it as well?it is one of the main influences for zack's movie. so by your logic that guy fails to the make cut. And golden age had some moments as well where we could believe the antagonist is dead. But, of course it was retconned. If remember currectly it was by the creators themselves so. I guess it sticks.

I agree with you. Especially, on the first 10 years being authentic version. I feel the same way. The thing that made me uncomfortable with the discussion is the claim that something that is clearly inspired from the authentic version of the character being rejected, in favour of the "classic" version. Because they claim it being not superman. It made me question whether i am really following superman at all. If what they claim to be "classic" version(for him it was the post crisis version) is so far away from the original vision or doesn't even have philosophy of the authentic character. Then is it realy superman. I felt like superman has become a literal "ship of theseus" that has been taken apart and given new parts. So much so that it has become a new-different ship that has nothing in common with the original.

Not saying it's the conflicting opinion of a single person, but a part of this concerns having it both ways. If we ignore the threat of murder, golden age Superman would explicitly and repeatedly assert that criminals deserved to die. If three criminals are responsible for murdering the entire population of earth without remorse and there are literally no higher authorities left, it's not implausible that the golden age Superman would carry out the death penalty. I can't go for "oh they were working out the bugs" especially if we argue that deviations from how he grew up (same homeworld, hometown, parents, friends, and occupation of course) make him different than the character written and drawn by the original creators. Legally that whole public domain thing concerns developments not personal evaluation of the character.

There's gotta be a softening on the part of people who wanna promote this guy. I see even creators saying which versions aren't really Superman. Meanwhile Batman can solve squabbles amongst purple dragon people or shoot you to death while you sleep, be Adam West or in No Man's Land, be the life of the party in costume or a caveman with ptsd. People just roll with it and it works.

Classic by my definition fits my playing cards: Jerry Ordway and JLGL splashes, covers from 1938 to 1992. It's what you would most likely conjure in your head when you think of the term.

To disclose: I'm down for it all unless we're talking fake Supermen. I don't wanna talk about Supreme and I surely wouldn't recommend that stuff in place of the real steel deal. Sorry, the obsessive nerd in me finds it gross. I was a complete casual growing up who liked the idea of Superman more so. I started really collected current stuff just after Joe Kelly and came around to the pre crisis stuff around the time of the flashpoint fallout rumors. I got so deep into the Superman of the 70s, didn't and still hardly like the 60s at all compared to Stan and Jack stuff, that I kinda rejected the Superman from my younger years. That changed with the Snyder movie and New 52 declining in combination. I started with Death Of but worked my way to having 85 percent of every comic from Man of Steel #1 -2003. Then around Reborn I started on the golden age.

For all the talk about the character being ruined, I don't see that classic reprint stuff ever chart. We just had the sixth golden age omnibus and if you don't know that stuff I promise it gets better into the late 40s. The silver age archives are like 3 bucks each on Amazon. I started a Bronze age thread because I thought I recalled others for other eras. Where are those discussions?

[Yoda]

Its why Supes "sticks with the status quo" as people complain. He could restructure the world with ease. But its not his choice, he's not a conquerer.

Exactly. You can do those types of stories with the Golden Age/Morrison level character. Once you amp up his powers, it changes the context. He either becomes a ruler or leads by example.