'Superman & Lois' in development at the CW

[manwhohaseverything]

For someone as powerful and invulnerable as Clark, seeing someone very close die should show him how fragile humans really are and how not even him can save everyone. I mean, you don't have to see the big deal, but I do.

He isn't an idiot. He was living with humans for years. What is he the buddha who was kept away from suffering of any kind till adulthood? Those kind of nonsense was later added on for drama and some for sainthood nonsense in the donner movie. Gotta pile in that jesus christ image. you know, learn the lesson to "Defy the temptation to turn every stone into bread" .

[Sacred Knight]

Living with humans for years doesn't automatically means you experience suffering/death on a personal level early on. You don't have to be the buddha to go quite some time before affects you. Its just the roll of the dice. I was 20 years old before I lost anyone remotely close to me.

[stargazer01]

Living with humans for years doesn't automatically means you experience suffering/death on a personal level early on. You don't have to be the buddha to go quite some time before affects you. Its just the roll of the dice. I was 20 years old before I lost anyone remotely close to me.

All this.

Hearing people die in the news is sad yes, but when it hits you home it's different and a lot more real. And Superman can use all the good drama it can get in his stories. This one seems plenty valid to me.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

I got a different question, why do deaths need some grand lessons? Two people died. That's just it.clark didn't learn anything from it, no grand lessons. No nothing.just mourning and loneliness which spurs him into action, like in the original comics. I like it simple and without drama.

I think from a narrative sense it’s more shallow if they die just because dead parental figures are generic textbook hero’s journey tropes. It’s not just about him learning from their deaths per se. it’s more about one or both of them dying in a way that compliments the themes of the story. I didn’t say it was Clark learning from Jon’s death that he can’t save everyone. I said it was an example of him having to confront that sad truth. One that hits our hero where he lives. I’m not going to bash new 52 Superman since there are stuff there I like. But the way the Kents died came across really shallow compared previous versions. Like they died just for dead parent angst. And that’s fine but pretty by the numbers.

I think a car crash works fine enough too, if the aim is to have the two parents pass at the same time. Just without the cosmic manipulation to it. Minus that though, car accidents, like medical emergencies, is the same type of thing where Clark learns the lesson that life can sometimes work too fast and too unpredictably even for him.

Yeah but the car crashes were always framed as cosmic manipulation. So it’s never been done well. Besides i think car crashes are by nature more avoidable than stuff like heart attacks and strokes. If Clark was there they’d be fine. And I know that’s what you’re saying and I agree that could have been a perfectly ok angle too, but I just think them dying in something completely out of Superman’s control works way better.

[manwhohaseverything]

Living with humans for years doesn't automatically means you experience suffering/death on a personal level early on. You don't have to be the buddha to go quite some time before affects you. Its just the roll of the dice. I was 20 years old before I lost anyone remotely close to me.

Really, death is pretty much everywhere. I had my first death when i was what? 5 years old or something(i can't quiet remember) . Why would it matter if its close or not? Isn't it telling that you need someone close to die to learn the fragility of human condition or other grand lesson?
I mean, atleast with buddha it wasn't personal. He didn't know what death was. And the first time he experienced it shook him to the core. It wasn't anyone close to him. He just couldn't understand it.

Clark doesn't even have that excuse. Loneliness and grief spurring him to action atleast makes sense. It isn't some grand lesson.he was alone. He had noone. He saw bullies beating up the little guy. He reacted automatically. It wasn't even intensional. His first Clark's superman work shouldn't start with intention. It should be a random act of kindness or involuntary action against a i justice. Like him coming out as superman . Like him just jumping into save lois and smashing the car. He was asked to stay hidden till, right time.

For me, my first personal death was last year. I just grieved(still am) and was lonely.so i decided to reach out. It didn't give me any grand lesson. I imagine it is same for many. Rocket raccoon in that guardians movie says it best "Everyones got dead people".

Clark's first action and his coming out Should be An altruism that exists at the core of human instincts. You know his hands just automatically moved to help a person who was falling . These lessons business removes that.It makes it a conscious decision which would have selfish implications like him needing an outlet or something. For clark, the conscious decision to be the vigilante strongman came later.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think from a narrative sense it’s more shallow if they die just because dead parental figures are generic textbook hero’s journey tropes. It’s not just about him learning from their deaths per se. it’s more about one or both of them dying in a way that compliments the themes of the story. I didn’t say it was Clark learning from Jon’s death that he can’t save everyone. I said it was an example of him having to confront that sad truth. One that hits our hero where he lives. I’m not going to bash new 52 Superman since there are stuff there I like. But the way the Kents died came across really shallow compared previous versions. Like they died just for dead parent angst. And that’s fine but pretty by the numbers.

Yeah! Well it's also a cliche done to death.atleast the original comics didn't fall into that. Clark's theme is genuine altruism. Genuine altruism isn't something that emerges from lessons or training. It's instinct.The theme can be explored. Pretty well, after eighty years of goldenage comics my hero with deku(him running to save kaachan) and allmight did it.Death doesn't factor into that.it just gives a hero a profound sense of loss, emptiness and solitude.Having lessons takes away from the genuine act of altruism that clark performed the first time. It basically like training a dog to roll over.

[phantom1592]

Yeah but the car crashes were always framed as cosmic manipulation. So it’s never been done well. Besides i think car crashes are by nature more avoidable than stuff like heart attacks and strokes. If the Clark was there they’d be fine. And I know that’s what you’re saying and I agree that could have been a perfectly ok angle too, but I just think them dying in something completely out of Superman’s control works way better.

That's the key point for me. If parents die of natural causes... it shows that with all his god-like powers he can't save everyone. MOST people would already know that... but honestly, the more experienced and confident that SUPERMAN can get in his powers... He would be learning the OPPOSITE lesson. He would start seeing himself as all powerful and thinking that he COULD save everyone all the time. Batman worked HARD for his abilities... he knows ever drop of sweat blood and tears needed to be a hero... For Clark everything just gets easier and easier as his powers grow more and more powerful. Anyone who dies... is on him. And that's a dangerous road to go down. The one last lesson that the kents can teach... Is that he ISN'T a god.

Which is why I dislike the car accident. Bruce has always had that unhealthy 'survivor's guilt' thing that he feels like he should have done more to help his parents... which is stupid because he was like 9... and y'know... untrained (part of the reason I feel that he has no problem training 10 year olds to be Robin... ) Bruce could NOT have helped his parents at all.

If the Kents die in a car accident.... CLARK COULD HAVE SAVED THEM. It was totally avoidable. he has the ears, the speed and the strength... He has all the tools he needs. He was too busy living a 'human' life.. but if he was paying attention, he could have saved them. THAT Superman shouldn't waste time with a Clark kent. He'd have learned that civilian life distracts him and people die. He would start pulling a 'Superman Returns'' where he hovers above the world at all times listening and looking for people to save.

I don't have a problem with Kents dying... We've had great Superman with and without them... but I really want it to serve some kind of narrative reason. As for this show? I think it's best if they're gone. For a story about Clark being an anchor and the foundation for a family.... It would be problematic if he still NEEDED a foundation and anchor.

[Agent Z]

That's the key point for me. If parents die of natural causes... it shows that with all his god-like powers he can't save everyone. MOST people would already know that... but honestly, the more experienced and confident that SUPERMAN can get in his powers... He would be learning the OPPOSITE lesson. He would start seeing himself as all powerful and thinking that he COULD save everyone all the time. Batman worked HARD for his abilities... he knows ever drop of sweat blood and tears needed to be a hero... For Clark everything just gets easier and easier as his powers grow more and more powerful. Anyone who dies... is on him. And that's a dangerous road to go down. The one last lesson that the kents can teach... Is that he ISN'T a god.

Which is why I dislike the car accident. Bruce has always had that unhealthy 'survivor's guilt' thing that he feels like he should have done more to help his parents... which is stupid because he was like 9... and y'know... untrained (part of the reason I feel that he has no problem training 10 year olds to be Robin... ) Bruce could NOT have helped his parents at all.

If the Kents die in a car accident.... CLARK COULD HAVE SAVED THEM. It was totally avoidable. he has the ears, the speed and the strength... He has all the tools he needs. He was too busy living a 'human' life.. but if he was paying attention, he could have saved them. THAT Superman shouldn't waste time with a Clark kent. He'd have learned that civilian life distracts him and people die. He would start pulling a 'Superman Returns'' where he hovers above the world at all times listening and looking for people to save.

I don't have a problem with Kents dying... We've had great Superman with and without them... but I really want it to serve some kind of narrative reason. As for this show? I think it's best if they're gone. For a story about Clark being an anchor and the foundation for a family.... It would be problematic if he still NEEDED a foundation and anchor.

Why would he come to that conclusion? What version of Superman (at least one that isn't an elseworld) has ever come to such a conclusion before?

[stargazer01]

Yeah! Well it's also a cliche done to death.atleast the original comics didn't fall into that. Clark's theme is genuine altruism. Genuine altruism isn't something that emerges from lessons or training. It's instinct.The theme can be explored. Pretty well, after eighty years of goldenage comics my hero with deku(him running to save kaachan) and allmight did it.Death doesn't factor into that.it just gives a hero a profound sense of loss, emptiness and solitude.Having lessons takes away from the genuine act of altruism that clark performed the first time. It basically like training a dog to roll over.

Somebody told and showed Clark what was right and what was wrong. He didn't just know it automatically. NObody does. It's why the Kents are very important in his life because they gave him morals to live by. He wouldn't be the same if he was raised by Lex, for instance.

Also, I never said Pa's death was his motivation to do the right thing, but it does show him that he isn't all powerful when applied well. Of course Superman the Movie didn't, but the point of that moment (when he saved Lois) was to me that he didn't listen to any of his fathers (Jor-El and Pa Kent), he defied "the rules" ("you shouldn't interviene in human history") to save the woman care about the most at that moment. He was selfish.

[Yoda]

In Superman The Movie he says F'u to Jor El and saves the world and Lois. He is defying authority but it's not like he screws the California coast to save Lois. He rejects the binary choice. That's about as Superman as Superman gets to me.

[misslane]

In Superman The Movie he says F'u to Jor El and saves the world and Lois. He is defying authority but it's not like he screws the California coast to save Lois. He rejects the binary choice. That's about as Superman as Superman gets to me.

Yet, would he turn back time to save other people's loved ones? It still shows him playing a god, and a selfish one. I can accept it because it's love and humanity that drive him, so in that sense it's very Super and Man. It's also nice not to have Lois die; although the story could have avoided that by not putting her in that position at all. Overall, it's not a bad moment and choice, but it does raise questions about Superman's agency.

[manwhohaseverything]

Somebody told and showed Clark what was right and what was wrong. He didn't just know it automatically. NObody does. It's why the Kents are very important in his life because they gave him morals to live by. He wouldn't be the same if he was raised by Lex, for instance.

Also, I never said Pa's death was his motivation to do the right thing, but it does show him that he isn't all powerful when applied well. Of course Superman the Movie didn't, but the point of that moment (when he saved Lois) was to me that he didn't listen to any of his fathers (Jor-El and Pa Kent), he defied "the rules" ("you shouldn't interviene in human history") to save the woman care about the most at that moment. He was selfish.

Nope!mate we learn much through observation. Especially, babies. Why do you think mother tongues are picked up so quickly? Besides lessons and stuff are just supplements. People are programmed to an extent to function according to societal norms. Its evolutionary, society helps survive.So,stability of that is important.

Besides that, your clark is like a robot or dog. Trained by trainer or programmer. So he doesn't make choices the programmer or trainer does. That is neither morality nor can it be called altruism. Its basically brainlessness. Morality is based on choices. Altruism is based on selflessness.As being rased by lex, well there would be still be part of clark that is clark. Why? Because he has base nature. He could be raised by darkseid, even then he would still have that.

As said, he ain't an idiot. Only idiots wouldn't know the limits of their powers. Sure, pride can blind. That's basically an archaic cliche.Belive me, a cliche is the last thing superman needs. It's basically christifying superman("don't turn all the stones to bread") . So what? He isn't a saint. Ofcourse he would act selfishly once in a while. Suppose he acts goody two shoes and does what his father(sheesh! Jesus) tells him.Then what? Where is the story? Why do you even want a morally perfect messiah anyways?

[misslane]

Living with humans for years doesn't automatically means you experience suffering/death on a personal level early on. You don't have to be the buddha to go quite some time before affects you. Its just the roll of the dice. I was 20 years old before I lost anyone remotely close to me.

I just think Clark would have been sensitive and empathic enough to perceive the frustration that one's powerlessness in the face of natural death can cause. The closest person I've ever lost was my grandmother, and I wasn't oblivious to those feelings before her passing.

I also struggle with the logic of it. What about learning how powers can't stop human mortality makes one want to be a hero other than the opposite lesson: acquire more power and exert more influence to stop death. It makes Clark's trek to the fortress in SUPERMAN I and his resurrection of Lois all part of a larger arc about a guy who refused to accept his powerlessness. In his next appearance, he even throws it all away briefly to be with Lois. I still love the story, because it's so human in a way and romantic. I just don't like how Pa's death has been taken to mean something and adapted to other things like this pilot in such a poor way; it's presented as a shortcut that almost relies on prior canon knowledge to give it weight.

[stargazer01]

Yet, would he turn back time to save other people's loved ones? It still shows him playing a god, and a selfish one. I can accept it because it's love and humanity that drive him, so in that sense it's very Super and Man. It's also nice not to have Lois die; although the story could have avoided that by not putting her in that position at all. Overall, it's not a bad moment and choice, but it does raise questions about Superman's agency.

I agree with pretty much all this.

Nope!mate we learn much through observation. Especially, babies. Why do you think mother tongues are picked up so quickly? Besides lessons and stuff are just supplements. People are programmed to an extent to function according to societal norms. Its evolutionary, society helps survive.So,stability of that is important.

Besides that, your clark is like a robot or dog. Trained by trainer or programmer. So he doesn't make choices the programmer or trainer does. That is neither morality nor can it be called altruism. Its basically brainlessness. Morality is based on choices. Altruism is based on selflessness.As being rased by lex, well there would be still be part of clark that is clark. Why? Because he has base nature. He could be raised by darkseid, even then he would still have that.

As said, he ain't an idiot. Only idiots wouldn't know the limits of their powers. Sure, pride can blind. That's basically an archaic cliche.Belive me, a cliche is the last thing superman needs. It's basically christifying superman("don't turn all the stones to bread") . So what? He isn't a saint. Ofcourse he would act selfishly once in a while. Suppose he acts goody two shoes and does what his father(sheesh! Jesus) tells him.Then what? Where is the story? Why do you even want a morally perfect messiah anyways?

I never said he was a saint.. I never said or wanted a messiah or a perfect man. I just want Clark to be a good man who always tries to do the right thing. I just like good people. I'm not a huge Superman fan because he has great power, though, I love it. I'm a huge fan because the world would be better if more people were like him. He inspires me. Of course he has a choice, he always does, and his choice is to do good and use his powers to help others and occasionally to enjoy himself too, why not.

To each their own..

[manwhohaseverything]

I agree with pretty much all this.




I never said he was a saint.. I never said or wanted a messiah or a perfect man. I just want Clark to be a good man who always tries to do the right thing. I just like good people. I'm not a huge Superman fan because he has great power, though, I love it. I'm a huge fan because the world would be better if more people were like him. He inspires me. Of course he has a choice, he always does, and his choice is to do good and use his powers to help others and occasionally to enjoy himself too, why not.

To each their own..

Mate, people who doesn't have a shred of selfishness is a saint. Doing the right thing is upto perspective. He said, goto hell to the father. Took a decision for himself and was willing to face any consequences. That's the only thing donner movies did to separate superman from jesus.