Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 83
  1. #46
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Smallville is about clark kent. I believe the creators themselves have said that much. Superman and kal l play support. Moreover, superman identity, clark kent and kal l were all fledglings. Did i say he needs to be called superman? I didn't, i said the opposite in my previous post. "The strongman always existed. He was just named superman later on" . Every "hero" or sometimes even "villain" wants to better the world. That isn't much of a story. It's the modus operandi that makes these identities and heroes/villains different. Superman is a strongman vigilante. So he is about pure unadulterated physicality. Clark is about language skills and search for truth. Kal l is about logic and reasoning .They all have same motives. (cough! Same guy who doesn't have disorder ). But, they all work differently. Well,it would be wrong in the sense that the modus operandi that was promised(in title) will not be delivered if clark is focused,not superman.like i said, harry potter book should absolutely be about harry. If it's about hermoine it wouldn't be wrong in universe. But, it would be wrong for the readers.You easily mitigate that, tell it upfront. Superman american alien was meant to be called clark kent:American alien. So, that identity, function.. Etc being focused wouldn't be wrong.
    You still seem to be using your personal terms as if they were universal terms.

    Clark Kent is not a universal term for language skills. Kal-L is not a term meaning "logic and reasoning". That might be what you think of when you hear/read the terms but it isn't the same thing everyone else thinks. And the quote "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do" certainly isn't meant to be understood as the character saying he is only "language skills and search for truth" or that Clark is rejecting logic and reasoning because he doesn't use the term Kal-L.

  2. #47
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    You still seem to be using your personal terms as if they were universal terms.

    Clark Kent is not a universal term for language skills. Kal-L is not a term meaning "logic and reasoning". That might be what you think of when you hear/read the terms but it isn't the same thing everyone else thinks. And the quote "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do" certainly isn't meant to be understood as the character saying he is only "language skills and search for truth" or that Clark is rejecting logic and reasoning because he doesn't use the term Kal-L.
    When did i say that? These guys were wierdly different in how they work was my position. They don't have to equate perfectly nor do they have to match my interpretation, Moreover these are broad strokes. But, their stories wierdly work different. Postcrisis superman largley didn't have clark solving problems and conundrums using logic/reasoning . You know which, all star superman. The minute a more man of tomorrow-ish interpretation of the character was on. He began solving things. Kal L did wierd social experiments back in the day. Clark works as journalist,there is more emphasis on his family and relationships. So, his adventures were largely more connected to daily planet stuff largely.Superman isn't much problem solver, till kal l came to the picture. As said, he is more about being a champion .In goldenage he would regularly goof up with his reckless nature. But, then he will wierdly do this thing were he adaptes with intuition to make things right. Stories were more "if you are man, do it with gusto". It was more about a larger than life controversial outlaw.Superman stories embraced what's exceptional in you.There is an adventures side in you if you just look for it.

  3. #48
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    When did i say that?
    From your prior post: "Superman is a strongman vigilante. So he is about pure unadulterated physicality. Clark is about language skills and search for truth. Kal l is about logic and reasoning ."

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    These guys were wierdly different in how they work was my position. They don't have to equate perfectly nor do they have to match my interpretation, Moreover these are broad strokes. But, their stories wierdly work different. Postcrisis superman largley didn't have clark solving problems and conundrums using logic/reasoning . You know which, all star superman. The minute a more man of tomorrow-ish interpretation of the character was on. He began solving things. Kal L did wierd social experiments back in the day. Clark works as journalist,there is more emphasis on his family and relationships. So, his adventures were largely more connected to daily planet stuff largely.Superman isn't much problem solver, till kal l came to the picture. As said, he is more about being a champion .In goldenage he would regularly goof up with his reckless nature. But, then he will wierdly do this thing were he adaptes with intuition to make things right. Stories were more "if you are man, do it with gusto". It was more about a larger than life controversial outlaw.Superman stories embraced what's exceptional in you.There is an adventures side in you if you just look for it.
    Find me a story where it actually shows that Kal-El (as opposed to Superman) is doing these social experiments. And I make that request because YOU are the one putting the Kal-El label on this particular character function in the post I am quoting. No one else in the thread is making statements about Kal-L's function being distinct from Superman's. And other than giving a history of how the character Superman developed, the only connection you have made to the statement "Clark is who I am..." is trying to state that Clark, Superman and Kal-L serve different functions with very precise definitions (and sometimes there is an overlap of these functions).

    So in reference to the original purpose of the thread: My take is that the core of the character, who he is under all the guises and costumes, is called "Superman" by some fans and "Clark" by other fans. The problem is that since "Clark" can refer to either "Smallville Clark" (who he is when interacting with people who know he is Superman) and "Metropolis Clark" (who he is to people he is trying to convince he is not Superman) two people can post contradictory statements about "Clark" that are both true depending on the definition they are using for who "Clark" is.

    "Superman" is universally Superman, for the most part.

    "Clark" might be the guy the Kents raised or the affectations he uses to distinguish that person from "Superman"

    "Kal-(E)L" might be the person he was born as before he ever became "Clark" or "Superman" and thus represent the traits shared by Superman/Clark in every situation. or "Kal-El" might just be used to refer to his Kryptonian identity in the same way that "Jacob Kurtzberg" might refer to the parts of the life of "Jack Kirby" not connected to comic books.

    I'm arguing that the same character traits people who agree with "Clark is who I am..." call "Clark are the character traits many Pre-Crisis people call "Superman". And most of these discussions fall apart because everytime someone refers to "Clark" you have half the fanbase picturing one person (the guy Jonathan and Martha raised) and the other half picturing a different person (the reporter who goes out of his way to act unlike Superman). So we are talking past each other. We are all talking about the same core traits using different names (Kal-L, Clark, Superman) for the person embodying those traits.

    We are assuming Bob, Robert and Berto are different people because they have different names when really we are all talking about the same guy.
    "Bob is the Kents' son. Robert is the reporter at the Planet. And Berto is from Krypton."
    "No, Berto grew up in Smallville. Bob works in Metropolis. And Robert hangs out in an ice castle"
    "I'm telling you Bob is the real guy"
    "Robert is the real guy, Bob is just a disguise"
    "You are both wrong. Berto created both Bob and Robert"

  4. #49
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post

    We are assuming Bob, Robert and Berto are different people because they have different names when really we are all talking about the same guy.
    "Bob is the Kents' son. Robert is the reporter at the Planet. And Berto is from Krypton."
    "No, Berto grew up in Smallville. Bob works in Metropolis. And Robert hangs out in an ice castle"
    "I'm telling you Bob is the real guy"
    "Robert is the real guy, Bob is just a disguise"
    "You are both wrong. Berto created both Bob and Robert"
    I get your larger point but this would be an argument against it, I think. If Bob is the Kent and Robert hangs at the ice castle, then Bob is also the reporter. Robert is technically a reporter, but when other reporters come around they don't treat him as a reporter but as the story itself. They believe he is a different person and he validates that belief. If we say Berto grew up in Smallville, then we're coming from the perspective that Berto is the guy and the others are roles.

    I tend to interchange the names myself (generally I just say Superman even if I'm talking about a double date with his Smallville buddies) but that doesn't mean missing the distinctions formed by context.

    Or how easy it is to divide the character across many different versions. Pre Crisis Robert referred to Bob in the third person, Post Crisis Bob thought about Bob's social life in the first person while in the ice castle.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

  5. #50
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    From your prior post: "Superman is a strongman vigilante. So he is about pure unadulterated physicality. Clark is about language skills and search for truth. Kal l is about logic and reasoning ."



    Find me a story where it actually shows that Kal-El (as opposed to Superman) is doing these social experiments. And I make that request because YOU are the one putting the Kal-El label on this particular character function in the post I am quoting. No one else in the thread is making statements about Kal-L's function being distinct from Superman's. And other than giving a history of how the character Superman developed, the only connection you have made to the statement "Clark is who I am..." is trying to state that Clark, Superman and Kal-L serve different functions with very precise definitions (and sometimes there is an overlap of these functions).

    So in reference to the original purpose of the thread: My take is that the core of the character, who he is under all the guises and costumes, is called "Superman" by some fans and "Clark" by other fans. The problem is that since "Clark" can refer to either "Smallville Clark" (who he is when interacting with people who know he is Superman) and "Metropolis Clark" (who he is to people he is trying to convince he is not Superman) two people can post contradictory statements about "Clark" that are both true depending on the definition they are using for who "Clark" is.

    "Superman" is universally Superman, for the most part.

    "Clark" might be the guy the Kents raised or the affectations he uses to distinguish that person from "Superman"

    "Kal-(E)L" might be the person he was born as before he ever became "Clark" or "Superman" and thus represent the traits shared by Superman/Clark in every situation. or "Kal-El" might just be used to refer to his Kryptonian identity in the same way that "Jacob Kurtzberg" might refer to the parts of the life of "Jack Kirby" not connected to comic books.

    I'm arguing that the same character traits people who agree with "Clark is who I am..." call "Clark are the character traits many Pre-Crisis people call "Superman". And most of these discussions fall apart because everytime someone refers to "Clark" you have half the fanbase picturing one person (the guy Jonathan and Martha raised) and the other half picturing a different person (the reporter who goes out of his way to act unlike Superman). So we are talking past each other. We are all talking about the same core traits using different names (Kal-L, Clark, Superman) for the person embodying those traits.

    We are assuming Bob, Robert and Berto are different people because they have different names when really we are all talking about the same guy.
    "Bob is the Kents' son. Robert is the reporter at the Planet. And Berto is from Krypton."
    "No, Berto grew up in Smallville. Bob works in Metropolis. And Robert hangs out in an ice castle"
    "I'm telling you Bob is the real guy"
    "Robert is the real guy, Bob is just a disguise"
    "You are both wrong. Berto created both Bob and Robert"
    Well, that wasn't what i was talking about that. Superman is strongman vigilante from space. That's what the books themselves say. I was more talking "clark kent being a universal term for language skill". That wasn't what i said broadly. Clark kent identity deals with that and emphasis is put on that.

    Superman literally tried to adopt jimmy and decided against it later on. I am not putting labels. I am merely classifying based on how these guys work and stories being told. It is required for create definitions. A definition generally mean putting boundaries or creating a domain . That's important because how these guys work and stories and tones will be different. Kal l dealt with lonliness and alienation. Not clark. Not superman.Superman never got bothered. Clark was accepted. Neither superman nor clark needed legion. Kal l did.kal got irradiated once and lois speculating clark and superman to be the same decided to say "stay away" to kal. This whole, issue didn't have kal l identity never being referred. But, it played to feed that identity.

    It depends on what you mean by underguise and costume. What is clark? If clark is the strongman vigilante. Then yes, you are right. What people call him wouldn't matter?But, if its him as reporter or farmer. Then you are only identifing functional clark kent identity, not functional superman identity. The portrayal needs to feed the superman identity,not the clark kent identity. Why? As said earlier titular identity.

    "Superman is universally superman" isn't a definition. what does that even entails? There is no reference point to know what that means. Superman is a detective vigilante is a definition. Superman is a martial artist warrior is a definition. There is a clear reference point.

    I don't see any traits of superman being reproduced with "clark is who i am" interpretation. Clark kent regularly feeds on the notions of "just a guy" . Superman played into the notions "i am more than just a guy".this will forever be the difference in the outlook. I neither did say anything about "real" guy nor did i say they are different people. I treated their differences based on story telling mechanisms as classification factor and asked to focus the identity and function that is truly the books are about. There for the strongman vigilante is what matters.You can call him clark, kal or superman. I named that function as superman. Why? Clark was passive figure. Kal l didn't exist. the next interpretation. I called it as kal. Why? The character started identifying himself as such. Clark was still passive. Superman started becoming passive as well, with only function of the character being saving people. Finally, the postcrisis interpretation. I called it clark. Unlike the goldenage here superman didn't exist. All notions of strongmanship and vigilantism are rejected. The above function of saving people which carried over became just another function added on top of the farmer/reporter whom i called clark. Kal l was first rejected but later on acknowledged and even embarrassed to a degree. How? The themes of alienation and lonliness all came back to a degree. Character started having more about discussions on culture, science.. Etc. For me, superman as an identity is dead in comics. It exists as name only for a function attributed to either clark or kal i.e saving people . When it should be treated like an identity on its own.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-26-2020 at 12:25 AM.

  6. #51
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    773

    Default

    Superman is the real guy, Clark Kent is a facade (but with real aspects to him). The quote in question severely misrepresents and limits the character.

  7. #52
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Superman or Clark being a facade is the same problem, limiting the character, just in different ways.

    I don't like that the quote is somehow associated with Post Crisis Superman, but it works for that tv show. It limits Superman but it's a story where Superman only pulls so much of the weight. There are many stories with no Clark at all that still work, but they similarly can't represent the character beyond the specific story.

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I am merely classifying based on how these guys work and stories being told. It is required for create definitions. A definition generally mean putting boundaries or creating a domain . That's important because how these guys work and stories and tones will be different. Kal l dealt with lonliness and alienation. Not clark. Not superman.Superman never got bothered. Clark was accepted. Neither superman nor clark needed legion. Kal l did.kal got irradiated once and lois speculating clark and superman to be the same decided to say "stay away" to kal. This whole, issue didn't have kal l identity never being referred. But, it played to feed that identity.
    I don't actually get those assessments, but that touches on some of the trouble here: there's nothing unchanging. Everyone knows the specific take you mean if you say Kal-L, but that version of the character was never even Kal-L.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

  8. #53
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuwagaton View Post
    I don't actually get those assessments, but that touches on some of the trouble here: there's nothing unchanging. Everyone knows the specific take you mean if you say Kal-L, but that version of the character was never even Kal-L.
    I tend to to interchange kal el and kal l. This is kal el. It's based on silverage stories. It easier to type and it feels cooler. I love kryptonians using just a letter or a sound.Jor l beinga scifi flash gordon type hero has always been very appealing. I also think the symbol of el house shouldn't be the s, but the sun symbol worn with some design updates. It can even coincide with another theme in dc. It also fits the whole hundreds of years of war between Cythonna and rao.

    "In fearful day, in raging night,

    With strong hearts full, our souls ignite.

    When all seems lost in the War of Light,

    Look to the stars, for hope burns bright!"

    Anyways, Fakeness is hardly a problem. Focus on an identity is the real conundrum . You need a anchoring view point.Another problem is defining the superman identity in the modern context that isn't underwhelming in nature.
    Last edited by manwhohaseverything; 05-26-2020 at 02:00 AM.

  9. #54
    Astonishing Member Adekis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,889

    Default

    The Golden Age Superman, or a contemporary twist on him, has been shown to work very well in the modern world, I'd argue better than the more "traditional" takes. Vigilantism is the norm for superheroes in any era, anyway, and besides, I think many of those "traditional" takes on the Man of Tomorrow have the heart of Jerry Siegel's Superman beating not far beneath the surface.

    That said, I don't think that dismissing other people's interpretations of Superman with a flat "what you just said doesn't matter," is very polite.
    "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

  10. #55
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adekis View Post
    The Golden Age Superman, or a contemporary twist on him, has been shown to work very well in the modern world, I'd argue better than the more "traditional" takes. Vigilantism is the norm for superheroes in any era, anyway, and besides, I think many of those "traditional" takes on the Man of Tomorrow have the heart of Jerry Siegel's Superman beating not far beneath the surface.

    That said, I don't think that dismissing other people's interpretations of Superman with a flat "what you just said doesn't matter," is very polite.
    Is that aimed at me? Where did i do that?i mean, i can get pretty passionate. But, it wasn't my intention nor do i think so. I just hate this idea that superman is nothing but a function and that clark kent/kal el decide to do. Its like clark kent and kal el are the only things good enough to explore. I even said, if the functional identity of superman is called clark kent or kal el it would be ok with me.

  11. #56
    Astonishing Member Adekis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Is that aimed at me? Where did i do that?i mean, i can get pretty passionate. But, it wasn't my intention nor do i think so. I just hate this idea that superman is nothing but a function and that clark kent/kal el decide to do. Its like clark kent and kal el are the only things good enough to explore. I even said, if the functional identity of superman is called clark kent or kal el it would be ok with me.
    I think your ideas are pretty reasonable overall, I just think a few times your passionate rhetoric can occasionally be a little inflexible, or maybe a little dismissive of other interpretations of, let's face it a character who changes and flip-flops a lot over the years as different artists interpret him. I don't mean to say that I think you're inflexible or dismissive all the time! Like you said, I think you just got a little bit heated, that's all! Being a little more aware of it is all I ask!

    Also I could've sworn you had a post that literally started with quoting someone else and then saying "It doesn't matter," but now I think that's the post which says "That wasn't what I was talking about," and the edit seems to have happened quite a bit before I made my post, so... I'm not entirely sure what happened there, haha!

    But absolutely don't get me wrong, because I definitely don't want to dismiss your views either! I even agree with quite a few of them - I think I've been pretty clear that the Golden Age Superman, and latter day reinterpretations of him, remain my favorite "flavor" of Superman a lot of the time!

    Here's one interpretation I like, if you'll permit me to respond to your last statement: "if the functional identity of Superman is called Clark Kent or Kal-El, it'd be okay with me."

    Generally when I say "Kal," it's "Superman" I'm talking about. All Superman's trappings are Kal's attempt to filter his Kryptonian heritage, whether that means a comprehensive knowledge of his homeworld, or just his powers and a certain sense of remove from "most people," through his lived experience on Earth, in its community. He's a scientist, but he's also a man of action first and foremost. I don't necessarily think there is a side of his personality devoted purely to logic and reasoning, or one devoted purely to speech and communication. After all, "Clark Kent" has taken decisive physical action before on several occasions, "Superman" is known to be a pretty good public speaker when the need arises, and "Kal" usually wears his "Superman" cape and costume when he does chemistry experiments in the Fortress, or goes to visit the Bottle City of Kandor.
    "You know the deal, Metropolis. Treat people right or expect a visit from me."

  12. #57
    Father Son Kamehameha < Kuwagaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    8,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I tend to to interchange kal el and kal l. This is kal el. It's based on silverage stories. It easier to type and it feels cooler. I love kryptonians using just a letter or a sound.
    Ah. Most of the time L and El are the difference between Earths One and Two. Which is weird now because whenever the comics are rebooted they take some elements from each to blend together instead of bringing back one or the other.
    Welcome or welcome back! Please check out the updated
    CBR Community STANDARDS & RULES

  13. #58
    (formerly "Superman") JAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    iowa
    Posts
    2,405

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    The problem for me is that "Clark Kent" and "Superman" are just words with no real solid definition.

    Is "Clark" the person he is when he's just around the Kents and Lois?
    Is "Clark" the person who works at the Planet?
    Is "Superman" only the guy who publicly rescues people, interacts with authorities and the press, etc;? Or does it include his interactions with his fellow heroes during downtimes (like League meetings or hanging with Bruce un the Batcave)?

    To me whatever you call him there is a persona who interacts with the Justice League, the Kents (including Lois) and Supergirl. This persona does the things like we saw in the vignettes at the start and end of Lois & Clark - playing every position on a baseball field just for kicks, changing lightbulbs without a step stool, heating up a warm beverage with a quick glance. and other small things. This guy is the full person. You can call him "Clark" because that is what the Kents called him growing up. You can call him "Superman" because there is less effort put into masking this persona when he is in costume. If we call this persona "Bob" rather than either "Superman" or "Clark" I suspect there would be a lot less disagreement about who is the real persona.

    "Clark" is always masking parts of himself to fit in. Even the Post-Crisis take wouldn't openly use his powers, which makes sense but still is a massive part of yourself being hidden. And the Pre-Crisis/Johns' take where Clark is clumsy, less assertive, or outright craven is far from his true self. The character might still think of himself as the boy Jonathan & Martha raised more than the biological son of Jor-El & Lara but that beomes a question of whether "Smallville Clark" or "Metropolis Clark" is what is meant by "Clark is who I am".

    "Superman" in most incarnations is less hidden (except about mentioning specific facts connecting him to his personal life). You can argue that Superman sometimes presents a more publically acceptable persona though. "Clark" might give you his opinions about a public issue easier than "Superman" would because of his fear that Superman's celebrity might exert undue influence or that Superman might be less effective if he had a divisive persons. Or it might be argued that "Superman" has a less complete persona because it only consists of what he shows people during brief interactions while in costume as compared to Clark's more one-on-one widespread interactions with people.
    Here's the way I see it: this quote is from Clark. Not "Metropolis Clark" or any other qualifier - just Clark.

    If you spend 10+ years with one name (as 90+% of the interpretations have), that's generally going to stick. But it's not any kind of outside identifier. "Smallville Clark" would be the closest, I suppose, but still wouldn't capture the "Clark" in this sentence. It's *his* self-identifier - and that might encompass bits of what he puts more into Superman than any of the public/semi-private "Clarks," but his self-identifier is still "Clark." Not any of our definitions, but his.

    It should also be repeated that this is usually something he says toward the beginning of his career as Superman (in those incarnations where he does say it), and that's important to note, too. Not taking that context into account runs the risk of not understanding the sentence at all, if I might be so bold.

    I've always read "but he's *really* SUPERMAN!!!" more as a kind of advertisement (for kids, at least initially) since that's the sensationalistic part of it to bring in the readers - but there's a difference between that general comic-book framework and what a character in that situation would actually be experiencing and thinking, mentally. Many stories (especially Silver Age) have expositions from characters that, in most instances, would have everyone in the room going "are you wearing a wire or something? why are you talking like we don't know what's happening?" but they don't because that's for the benefit of the reader. We don't then say "these characters in Metropolis have a compulsive, psychologically unhealthy need to give exposition so often that the condition probably has a named psychological term on this universe" - we just go with it.
    Last edited by JAK; 05-26-2020 at 12:09 PM.
    Hear my new CD "Love The World Away", available on iTunes, Google Music, Spotify, Shazam, and Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01N5XYV..._waESybX1C0RXK via @amazon
    www.jamiekelleymusic.com
    TV interview here: https://snjtoday.com/snj-today-hotline-jamie-kelley/

  14. #59
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon Clark View Post
    The only thing we really seem to disagree about is that you insist that the protagonist is "Superman".

    Spider-man is the title character over at Marvel, but the person the reader is getting the story through is Peter Parker. The guy running around Central City is Barry Allen (or Wally West). No one is going to dispute that these are the same exact characters regardless of whether or not they are in costume.

    But with Superman we are led to believe that the newspaper man and the costumed hero are different in some way. That in the exact same situation Clark or Superman would act and think differently. That's the whole point of "Clark is who I am". That somehow he is either Clark Kent putting on a costume to perform feats as Superman or he is Superman/Kal-El putting on a pair of glasses (and other traits) to be Clark. So depending on which you believe the perspective for how to read a scene where he is alone changes. Is that "Clark" or "Superman" thinking that Lois is exasperating?

    I tend to think some people say "Clark" and others say "Superman" but that they are literally thinking the exact same thing and calling it different names. So everything you say about Superman (sans the costumed feats) is what someone else would say about "Clark" To them Clark is the protagonist and wearing the role of Superman.
    Agreed.

    Consider the Nolan Batman films. Nolan makes it a point to say that the character Christian Bale is playing is "Bruce Wayne". That's what it says in the end-credits. That's what the movie tells us - Batman is a symbol that Bruce Wayne creates to inspire the people of Gotham to rise up against the criminal and the corrupt. Bruce Wayne is the real person and Batman is the 'persona'. Yet, no one will ever make the argument that these movies aren't Batman movies, or that Bale isn't playing Batman.

    Ditto with Spider-Man. The character is Peter Parker who creates the persona of Spider-Man. Spider-Man is an identity, a suit, a symbol. Peter doesn't literally think of himself as Spider-Man in first person...he's Peter. Yet, no one can argue that these aren't Spider-Man stories or that the main character isn't Spider-Man.

    I think with Superman, there are a couple of things that confuse the issue. Firstly, there's the fact that Superman has the 'real' face of the character, while Clark Kent is the one who's disguised. So intuitively it feels, on some level, that Clark is the fake identity and Superman is who he 'really' is. Earlier interpretations (and some later interpretations) of Clark Kent had him pretending to be a weakling and a pushover...this exaggerated act of weakness further adds to the notion that Clark is fake. Then there's the fact that Superman was born with his powers (or at any rate, born with the genes that would give him his powers). Peter Parker could only become Spider-Man once that spider bit him...but the person who was raised as Clark Kent was born with the genetics that, in the right environment, would give him the powers of Superman.

    However, leaving that aside, when you consider his backstory, he grew up as Clark Kent and identified himself as such. It is as Clark Kent that he made the decision to use his powers to help people. And it is as Clark Kent that he created the identity of Superman...just like how Bruce Wayne created the identity of Batman.

    But this is where things get even more complicated...when you introduce the third identity of Kal-El, which allows you to create the impression that Clark Kent and Superman are both constructs of Kal-El, the person he was born as. And then, you can argue that since Superman can embrace Kal-El's Kryptonian heritage publicaly, and has powers because of his birthright as Kal-El, that Superman = Kal-El = the 'real' person, while Clark is the disguise. Certainly, the Donner films leaned in that direction - the whole Superman persona was basically Jor-El giving Kal-El a suit and a mission. Clark Kent basically became a disguise after that.

    However, apart from the Silver Age, he didn't even discover he was Kal-El until anywhere between his late teens or his late twenties. In many cases (including the Golden Age) he creates the Superman persona without knowing about Kal-El.

    The way I see it, if you spent 15-30 years of your life believing yourself to be Clark Kent, and later discover that you are also Kal-El...then you never stop being Clark Kent. You would fundamentally self-identify as Clark Kent, even if you also gradually embrace the Kal-El side of yourself. As for Superman, you might put on a suit and call yourself that...but it doesn't mean that you think of yourself as Superman and abandon the Clark Kent persona you grew up with.

  15. #60
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adekis View Post
    Generally when I say "Kal," it's "Superman" I'm talking about. All Superman's trappings are Kal's attempt to filter his Kryptonian heritage, whether that means a comprehensive knowledge of his homeworld, or just his powers and a certain sense of remove from "most people," through his lived experience on Earth, in its community. He's a scientist, but he's also a man of action first and foremost. I don't necessarily think there is a side of his personality devoted purely to logic and reasoning, or one devoted purely to speech and communication. After all, "Clark Kent" has taken decisive physical action before on several occasions, "Superman" is known to be a pretty good public speaker when the need arises, and "Kal" usually wears his "Superman" cape and costume when he does chemistry experiments in the Fortress, or goes to visit the Bottle City of Kandor.
    I seriously, i didn't meant to be rude. I am just a stubborn person. So, it that side of me just comes many a time.

    The problem with that i find is. Superman wouldn't want his Vigilantism be something associated with krypton. He wouldn't want his questionable side to be the legacy of Krypton. I always envisioned kryptons legacy to be the fortress and the legion itself. I also think it should be something he built by scientific research and archeology.Essentially, the tomorrow he built. Its also why i propose that the symbol of el family be not Clark's s, but the symbol worn by jor el. I would want superman's symbol to signify the conviction of strongman values. Hence, the champion of the oppressed and the stoicism . For true strength is defending the defenceless and being their friend, being helpful in their pursuit of strength, happiness and work together with them to get better yourself . If that symbol later becomes synonymous with hope. Then it's earned. A champion always earns his titles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •