It doesn't matter. Besides, he is one of them. Ofcourse, he is gonna have bad ideas.
Wait, i am confused. Are you agreeing with him or not.i mean, A guy dealing with two or three parts of himself is less complex. How? A guy who reject his alien heritage, who thinks of vigilante identity as something he does there by eliminating both and leaving only the human identity is more complex?
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-13-2020 at 06:29 AM.
They're not, but in Superman's case IMO his weirdness and complexity are often tied together. It also depends on what layer of complexities we're talking about (character, archetype, story role).
Like Ascended said, without a lot of his quirks post-COIE Superman is just kinda basic. Oddly, becoming more dull despite the attempt to make him more "relateable."
Well like Robanker said, a big chunk of this discussion is really about the complexity of writing moreso than the complexity of character. But yeah, Moore came in at the end and really made the most of that Bronze Age version. However, just because Moore was ahead of the talent curve doesn't mean he was working with anything that wasn't already there; his Superman wasn't a new creation, he wasn't even really making new insights that hadn't been made by others, Moore was just better at it.
But a character arc is not character complexity.Superman at that point had become a character who, when read in stories two years apart, was actually different from having experienced those two years (our time).
Well, two things. First, Superman stopped "putting Clark on like a backpack" as the writing became more sophisticated in the Bronze Age, and Clark began to matter more as the writing evolved. And Bates and Maggin stating that these were essentially two different people....doesn't that imply that this guy is a more complex person than other versions where one identity or the other is just a mask?Pre Crisis, he really wasn't Clark though. He wasn't within mortal confines ever, came to earth with memories of Krypton. He didn't struggle for years to understand Clark, just put him on like a backpack as a kid. When he speaks to you as Clark he might have an objective as Superman, but Superman wouldn't speak to you about something for the sake of Clark. Bates and Maggin seemed to agree that they were decidedly separate.
I dunno man. A major point of post-Crisis is that he *isn't* two people. Superman was the job. It was the reverse of the early Silver Age stuff when Clark was just a disguise.He manages to be two actual guys simultaneously. I'm a big fan of Adventures of Superman #599, where he spends the whole issue talking to a Russian farmer as Superman, but obviously relating as Clark. Being written that way made him written more consistently with decisions that had long term weight.
"We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."
~ Black Panther.
It depends on when you're talking about. For the first 2 years or so after the reboot I would say that post-crisis Superman was less complex than what had come in the previous 5-10 years. But as post-crisis went on I feel he did grow into a deeper character. Under Byrne, Clark was a farmboy with superpowers who didn't see himself as anything particularly special and whose motivation was basically to 'do good.' Beginning with the Supergirl saga, where Byrne ended his run, he started to take on real responsibility for the first time, make hard decisions, and has to actually deal with what it means to be Superman. It takes a while before he really starts to appear as a leader or the kind of Superman who inspires people, but he does get there, and as his Superman develops his Clark does as well.
I think this depends on the story, sometimes Pre-crisis Superman would be a deeper character and sometimes Post Crisis was a deeper character it depends on the writer and the story.
On a slightly unrelated note, I've had this theory about Superman and the early vigilantism that I've wanted to share for a while now.
Does anyone feel that the reason Golden Age Superman started out as a vigilante was because he didn't have the Kents around to temper him and keep him in check?
I just have a hard time believing that a Clark Kent who had his aged parents back home whom he frequently visited to talk to about his work as Superman would go about demolishing slums or threatening to throw corrupt politicians down from flagpoles. I have a hard time believing that Pa Kent would be okay with his son threatening elected officials and being wanted by the police for some pretty violent and destructive actions.
The Kents strike me as the kind of people who would want their son to 'do good' but not necessarily go on a rampage against the system.
What got me thinking about this is that the early New 52 Superman is a kind of throwback to the Golden Age and...surprise, surprise, the Kents are dead in this version too!
I'm remembering the STAS pilot episode (well, Part 2 or 3 of it anyway) where Martha talks about how Clark isn't like "that nut in Gotham City". Golden Age Superman was is every bit as violent and ruthless, if not more, as "that nut in Gotham City" (definitely more so than the original Kane/Finger Batman even).
Superman is still a vigilante. Dc whenever tries play the registration concept. They say "viglante registration act", not "superheroe registration act" . It's whole different deal that current superman nor ma and pa see him as such. All three of them are naive and out of touch to be written like that.
I don't believe either ma and pa nor his birth parents would approve of Clark's Vigilantism. If they existed superman as a figure or an identity wouldn't exist. Clark would be something else and using his powers that way to help or maybe he would donned costume regardless seeing injustice . But, the character wouldn't have deterred in this particular case especially even if ma and pa came back from the dead. Why? Because he believes it is the right thing to do.He was convinced. And The man of action always does what he believes is the right thing to do.
This comment feels a little like boxing in goldenage superman as a "misguided" youth and this being just "phase" notion . I assure you, the only naive one is the guy who wears underpants on the outside for no reason at all,Not the strongman from space.
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-13-2020 at 10:31 AM.
I don't now, Silver Age Clark had his Kents dead too and he never needed them to reign him in.
I think regardless, we need to move away from the fear of Golden Age-stuff making him appear more like Batman. It's similar to Byrne keeping the Kents alive post-COIE because he couldn't conceive of the character not becoming someone like Batman which was...a very strange thought process. It really shouldn't matter because Clark was doing this before Bruce existed, and Batman is now considered the cooler one anyway. He should at least be able to go through a Golden Age phase of him being a bit more violent and edgy before reigning himself in as he matures, Batman be damned.
This coming from an adaptation made by people who favor Batman is also less than encouraging.
I suspect it's a lot simpler than that. The Golden Age Superman started out as a vigilante because it was the Golden Age. Comic strips (and comic books, which were mainly reprints of strips) featured characters who were (both literally and figuratively) black and white - heroes and villains. There were no shades of gray. The heroes could thus get away with being brutal and breaking the law, because they inflicted violence on the bad guys, and that was all the readers cared about. It was a Manichaean approach to fiction, but it fit well into the format, where stories had to be told briskly without lingering to explore character's deeper motivations. They were good or they were bad, and that was that, so turn them loose and let them fight each other. The good guy wins. and it's on to the next adventure. The whole concept of a character's psychology, his motivations, his upbringing, and especially his inner conflicts, couldn't be explored within the limited space. It was only after the comics went into extended story lines with long-standing continuity that the characters, both heroes and villains, were able to become more complex. Then it started to matter whether the heroes were brutal and law-breakers, because now there could be some moral ambiguity in their actions.
You are right regarding superman as vigilante. It was a trend to see these swashbuckling heroes do fisty cuffs and zoro like fashion. Other than that, comics were episodic. depending on the perspective the superman character itself is quite grey. The Superman conundrums was at the root of the story. Whether this guy was a gun or a hero. Story says, he is the hero. But, doesn't say otherside is entirely wrong either. But as you said, the villains where less dwelled upon. But, that doesn’t mean they didn't provide requirements needed for the conflict, character arc and resolution . It like the mcu villains, largely. They serve the purpose. For example, superman threatens corrupt ammunition maker and makes him enlist to teach him a lesson. The guy gets petrified of death on the battlefield. He grows to hate war.
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-13-2020 at 11:02 AM.
Sure, Superman is still 'technically' a vigilante, as are all other Justice League members. But they aren't considered 'vigilantes' the way Batman is...they are 'superheroes'. And in many continuities, Superman has enjoyed some form of official status or recognition.
Superman and the other 'superheroes' aren't part of the system, but for the most part, they show up to lend a helping hand or when people need rescuing or to deal with some extraordinary threat that the normal authorities couldn't possibly handle. They typically aren't the sort who would proactively break the law and interfere in law enforcement, the way Batman does in more modern interpretations.
And yes, even Morrison dealt with the idea of the early Golden Age stuff being a 'phase'. Morrison's New 52 run was in many ways a modern interpretation of the transition from early Siegal/Shuster Superman to the more classic interpretation we're all familiar with now. Superman, shortly after the League is formed, thinks about how the team could be a force of change across the globe - toppling regimes, reshaping the world etc. Basically, this is still a Golden Age-esq Clark thinking about how he and his newfound superfriends can take the "let's demolish slums" mindset global. And Batman and the other heroes caution him against it and explain why its a bad idea.
Its never been stated on-panel but I suspect one reason why Superman eventually 'mellows' down and becomes more an upholder of the status quo is because his powers grow to the point where continuing to act like a 'vigilante' essentially sets him down the path to being a global tyrant.
Silver Age Clark started his career as Superboy, when his parents were very much alive, and his Superman career is just an extension of that.
That's the real world reason. I'm just speculating about possible in-story reasons here. Obviously, Siegal/Shuster never thought about this when they were writing the character.
"We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another, as if we were one single tribe."
~ Black Panther.
Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-13-2020 at 11:47 AM.