What is the essence of Superman which is never changeable since Golden Age?

[Sacred Knight]

That's why I listed the way the Clark/Lois relationship started and nothing further. They work together, there's a spark, he's into her and she's more focused on Superman. It has evolved or outright changed on its head from there but that's how it started and I still think how most public consciousness thinks of it, so I believe that generality best fits from a tenant point of view.

[Yoda]

I think other than the "S" Shield you're going to have gaps for one reason or another. You can probably remove or tweak certain elements in certain takes and still remain true, generally, to the "essence" of the character. I don't think a run without various elements necessarily means those elements are not part of the essential essence of the character. In many respects the absence proves the rule.

Supreme feels like a Superman story, but it's ultimately not really. So I don't think that's a really good example of what makes an essential "Superman." And really it plays with all the main elements. He has a symbol, his job is papered over, but plays essentially the same. The dual identity stuff is there, but not really the main point of the story. He has a Lois, a Lex, Krypto, a Daily Planet, etc. It's all a little off, and feels that way.

Now taking broader media into consideration moves away from the minutia of continuity and you get a better picture of the essentials. Like it or not, the "essence" of Superman is cemented in those portrayals, not comics, for pop culture.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think other than the "S" Shield you're going to have gaps for one reason or another. You can probably remove or tweak certain elements in certain takes and still remain true, generally, to the "essence" of the character. I don't think a run without various elements necessarily means those elements are not part of the essential essence of the character. In many respects the absence proves the rule.

Supreme feels like a Superman story, but it's ultimately not really. So I don't think that's a really good example of what makes an essential "Superman." And really it plays with all the main elements. He has a symbol, his job is papered over, but plays essentially the same. The dual identity stuff is there, but not really the main point of the story. He has a Lois, a Lex, Krypto, a Daily Planet, etc. It's all a little off, and feels that way.

Now taking broader media into consideration moves away from the minutia of continuity and you get a better picture of the essentials. Like it or not, the "essence" of Superman is cemented in those portrayals, not comics, for pop culture.

Should it be? It's better served as side plot in the background. The story should be about superman. Not kal el, nor clark kent. Certainly not about their love life with human girls or godesses. Having an s doesn't make you superman. That's as surface level as you can get. That's how i read things. I could say a strawhat provides and embodies the meaning of the s better than the shield itself.It's just a symbol he got from his parents now and has built-in meaning that makes no sense other than a grandiose one. Essentially, it means nothing. This isn't just a minutia of continuity. That was the time period that the character was forged in, for any kind of lose or hard adaptation including comicbook ones .That's what i see every other supermen as.Adaptations.Some great, others not so much.

On a side note, the love triangle was taken from zorro. If people like that stuff more.

[Korath]

Your personal preference for a brief window that is an outlier of an 80 year history for Superman was not the question asked nor is it relevant. You’ve made it perfectly clear you don’t like Lois and it’s not relevant. Clearly I don’t agree with you as she’s my favorite female character ever with Wonder Woman as close second but, again, that wasn’t the question asked.

The question was specifically about what is consistent about Superman from the golden age. What has remained a core. Lois Lane and the feelings between Lois/Clark/Superman —-no matter who the dominant identity is at the time—is the most consistent core of Superman. She’s the only other person that was part of the original design by Siegel and Shuster. Partially modeled on a real woman. Joanne Siegel—we know this. It’s fact. Clark asks her out in the first issue and they kiss for the first time a few issues in and it was such a conservative culture that they couldn’t even show the kiss on the page bc it was considered too scandalous.

So, yes, Lois Lane and the relationship between Lois, Clark and Superman is one of the consistent essences of Superman since the golden age and your personal dislike of her does not change this fact. Period.

If it was erased for five years without affecting the character of Superman -in fact enhancing him greatly in my eyes - then it's not consistent since the Golden Age. That's a fact. You may like it, good for you, but it doesn't change the fact that this relationship is not what define Superman the character at all. He is still the same without Lois in his life. In fact, the emphasis on it has been obviously detrimental to him (see Kingdom Come and even more recently Injustice).

It's not as bad as "Batman need a Robin to not be an unhinged *******" but it certainly hasn't been beneficial to the character in recent years.

[Jon Clark]

I think other than the "S" Shield you're going to have gaps for one reason or another. You can probably remove or tweak certain elements in certain takes and still remain true, generally, to the "essence" of the character. I don't think a run without various elements necessarily means those elements are not part of the essential essence of the character. In many respects the absence proves the rule.

See Korath's reply to Nelliebly. Since the thread is asking for stuff that hasn't changed- someone is going to argue that as soon as a Superman run downplays or removes an element it becomes non-essential. As soon as I read Nelliebly's post, the first thing that popped into my head was that New 52 would be used to show that Lois could be removed as a love interest.

The problem with the list is that while some of us will argue that leaving one element or another out from a major Superman story was a misstep that was corrected by later stories, someone else will argue that the element was left out of that story thus showing you could tell a major story without it. Does the "electro-Superman" era show that the powers are not essential or that since he reverted to the classic set those are his essntial powers?

Supreme feels like a Superman story, but it's ultimately not really. So I don't think that's a really good example of what makes an essential "Superman." And really it plays with all the main elements. He has a symbol, his job is papered over, but plays essentially the same. The dual identity stuff is there, but not really the main point of the story. He has a Lois, a Lex, Krypto, a Daily Planet, etc. It's all a little off, and feels that way.

I agree that Supreme isn't Superman. My point was that i felt that while you could point to many of the things people were listing as essential as part of Superman stories being told around 2000, those stories felt less like Superman stories than the pastische by Alan Moore that lacked those essentials. Sometimes there are things that you can't quite define that are more important than a page full of items you can list.

In the 1960's you could get some wacky story where Superman was under a polka-dot sun where he had unique powers but lacked classic ones- but he was still "Superman". And you could have a story where an escaped Kanadorian criminal replaced our hero down to pretending to be Clark Kent but the guy wasn't "Superman". I have the feeling that everything listed as "unchanged since the Golden Age" would apply to the imposter and most of it wouldn't apply to our hero under that polka-dot sun. And it would be becuase what we think of as Superman includes so many traits that are there for most of the last 75 years but just aren't ones that jump out until you see a story where they are missing.

Now taking broader media into consideration moves away from the minutia of continuity and you get a better picture of the essentials. Like it or not, the "essence" of Superman is cemented in those portrayals, not comics, for pop culture.

But again- what is essential and what is a misstep? Are Superman: The Movie, Smallville,, and Man of Steel all showing the essential Superman in the parts that are similar or are there essential things that might show up in only one or two of these but not all three

Just my personal opinions
I thought that Chris Reeve gave the best performance and the first two movies are among my favorite live action takes but:
1) Smallville got Lex right in ways the Donnerverse and Snyderverse didn't.
2) Man Of Steel while I'm not a s big a fan got young Clark's sense of responsibility more right than Smallville or Superman: The Movie

So I might not want to insist that you could get Superman's essential traits from any one of the adaptations and I certainly wouldn't state that every adaptation contains all of the essentials (so that by comparing two adaptations you could get the essentials by focusing on shared traits between them).

[SiegePerilous02]

If it was erased for five years without affecting the character of Superman -in fact enhancing him greatly in my eyes - then it's not consistent since the Golden Age. That's a fact. You may like it, good for you, but it doesn't change the fact that this relationship is not what define Superman the character at all. He is still the same without Lois in his life. In fact, the emphasis on it has been obviously detrimental to him (see Kingdom Come and even more recently Injustice).

It's not as bad as "Batman need a Robin to not be an unhinged *******" but it certainly hasn't been beneficial to the character in recent years.

Five years is a drop in the pond compared to how long both of those characters have been around. More importantly, she was still around during that period. Again, you're forgetting that Grant Morrison re-introduced her right away in his run and set her up as his endgame romance even if they weren't in a relationship in the present.

Yes some aspects of the relationship can be detrimental for him (for her as well), and I don't generally like the marriage in an ongoing basis. But much like the Robin example you provided, that's a poor execution of the relationship, not that it's unimportant to the mythos in general. Blame the writing, not her. Nobody in their right mind can say Lois or Robin are unimportant when both of them have been around since day 1 and are household names for people who've never cracked a comic book open and were grandfathered in before these bad writing trends started. Most casuals are not going to be able to name many supporting players in Superman besides Lois- certainly not many of the other love interests.

[Korath]

Five years is a drop in the pond compared to how long both of those characters have been around. More importantly, she was still around during that period. Again, you're forgetting that Grant Morrison re-introduced her right away in his run and set her up as his endgame romance even if they weren't in a relationship in the present.

Yes some aspects of the relationship can be detrimental for him (for her as well), and I don't generally like the marriage in an ongoing basis. But much like the Robin example you provided, that's a poor execution of the relationship, not that it's unimportant to the mythos in general. Blame the writing, not her. Nobody in their right mind can say Lois or Robin are unimportant when both of them have been around since day 1 and are household names for people who've never cracked a comic book open and were grandfathered in before these bad writing trends started. Most casuals are not going to be able to name many supporting players in Superman besides Lois- certainly not many of the other love interests.

Eh, let's agree to disagree. Five years of truly heroic and inspiring Superman not burdened by the "iconic" cast certainly did a lot more than the 75 other years to make me care about the character. Before New 52, I didn't care about Superman (and his cast). Now I do, because of the New 52.

[SiegePerilous02]

Eh, let's agree to disagree. Five years of truly heroic and inspiring Superman not burdened by the "iconic" cast certainly did a lot more than the 75 other years to make me care about the character. Before New 52, I didn't care about Superman (and his cast). Now I do, because of the New 52.

I don't disagree that the periods immediately before and after the New 52 weren't much to right home about either. But the blueprint for the New 52 is the Golden Age version, and much of the iconic cast was there since day 1 or added very shortly thereafter. That's why Lois, Perry, Jimmy, Kryptonite, the Daily Planet, Phantom Zone, Kandor, etc are all part of the New 52 Superman from the beginning. Costume aside, New 52 Superman WAS the iconic classic version revamped. And was pulling from a lot of older stuff in general to inform it, a lot of the stuff present there came about during the previous 75 years. We just unfortunately didn't see much of it regularly or in consistent forms after COIE happened.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

Eh, let's agree to disagree. Five years of truly heroic and inspiring Superman not burdened by the "iconic" cast certainly did a lot more than the 75 other years to make me care about the character. Before New 52, I didn't care about Superman (and his cast). Now I do, because of the New 52.

None of this makes sense. The character has been heroic the entire time he's been around, if you're implying that the new 52 invented him being heroic and inspiring, well that does not compute. New 52 Superman still had the same supporting cast as he always did. The mainstays were all still there. Beyond that I can't name one noteworthy supporting cast member the new 52 added. And if i could it would probably have dig up someone really obscure.
As for iconicness, if you're just refering to the costume, notably the lack of trunks... that's really all that's missing. They still maintained the usual iconic details but with updates or within the aesthetic of the new 52.
That and they forced him into a unsustainable crossover romance with WW that probably helped doom that version of the character for a reboot.
i liked the new 52 as much as the next guy, but who Superman and his world was then and what is was before and since isn't all that different.

[SiegePerilous02]

None of this makes sense. The character has been heroic the entire time he's been around, if you're implying that the new 52 invented him being heroic and inspiring, well that does not compute. New 52 Superman still had the same supporting cast as he always did. The mainstays were all still there. Beyond that I can't name one noteworthy supporting cast member the new 52 added. And if i could it would probably have to be really obscure.
As for iconicness, if you're just refering to the costume, notably the lack of trunks... that's really all that's missing. They still maintained the usual iconic details but with updates or within the aesthetic of the new 52.
That and they forced him into a unsustainable crossover romance with WW that probably helped doom that version of the character for a reboot.
i liked the new 52 as much as the next guy, but who Superman and his world was then and what is was before and since isn't all that different.

There were some great new villains added in Morrison's run. Vyndktvx is great, Superdoom is better than Doomsday ever was, Nimrod, the Evolver and the Multitude are all neat, etc.

But...Lex, Brainiac, Metallo and Mxy are still there along with Lois, Jimmy, Krypto and some obscure ass ones like Susie Thompkins and (to a lesser extent) George Taylor. The Legion connection is back. There's a Phantom zone criminal, albeit one that isn't Zod (BUT still is a Silver Age character). They did some weird things with Kara and she had a shitty costume but the classic familial connection was there right from the get go.

Literally the only difference is the marriage being gone and everyone being younger, but that's it. A lot of the stuff has its roots in the Golden/Silver age, so a lot of it isn't really "new" at all.

[Sacred Knight]

I'm a known New 52 Superman supporter but I'd agree he's not that different. That was really the appeal to me. The differences are slight. When put together they can create a somewhat different status quo in regards to the details. Its just that the details tend to be a big deal for fans and thats' why certain things appeal to one faction while another faction is completely turned off while yet another will be indifferent entirely. So New 52 Superman wasn't that different an incarnation. He was just different in a few specific ways that led to differing reactions. Its one of the things that's intriguing about the character, that difference in details can change an impression entirely. Its why I think altering versions that on their face don't seem that different are still worth the exploration.

In fact these thoughts have been driving me to a conclusion lately that Superman benefits the least from the shared universe, staunch continuity concept.

[Powerboy]

Hmm, stuff that has always been there since the Golden Age.

Um, well. The costume in some variation not counting very brief changes.

The problem is that most of the stuff that we consider so important is stuff we sort of read into the early stuff but it either came later and was retroactively added to the Golden Age or it was there but is long gone.

As I said, the costume, the name, that he's Clark Kent and works at a newspaper or similar news agency with Lois Lane.

I guess it's reasonable to say he always worked for Perry White and the Daily Planet since George Taylor and the Daily Star sort of morphed one day into White and the Planet as if they had always been.

I guess Lex Luther might count but he wasn't really Superman's first arch-enemy and there was no personal connection between them.

Superman always had the desire to do what's right but in a very different way than later. Then and sometimes, he was the champion of the oppressed but that got very set aside during most eras.

Lois Lane has always been there but she was just somewhat of a foil and somewhat of a romantic interest at first, a stereotypical woman trying to trap a man into marriage later and, much later, Superman's true and inseparable love interest.

In short, I think it more accurate to talk about what Superman evolved into than what was always there. Luthor got the job of being the arch-nemesis because the Ultra-Humanite was considered a little too out there. When the time was right for super heroes to have genuine romantic relationships, Lois was the obvious choice without messing with other characters and their stories like Wonder Woman, for example.

[manwhohaseverything]

Hmm, stuff that has always been there since the Golden Age.

Um, well. The costume in some variation not counting very brief changes.

The problem is that most of the stuff that we consider so important is stuff we sort of read into the early stuff but it either came later and was retroactively added to the Golden Age or it was there but is long gone.

As I said, the costume, the name, that he's Clark Kent and works at a newspaper or similar news agency with Lois Lane.

I guess it's reasonable to say he always worked for Perry White and the Daily Planet since George Taylor and the Daily Star sort of morphed one day into White and the Planet as if they had always been.

I guess Lex Luther might count but he wasn't really Superman's first arch-enemy and there was no personal connection between them.

Superman always had the desire to do what's right but in a very different way than later. Then and sometimes, he was the champion of the oppressed but that got very set aside during most eras.

Lois Lane has always been there but she was just somewhat of a foil and somewhat of a romantic interest at first, a stereotypical woman trying to trap a man into marriage later and, much later, Superman's true and inseparable love interest.

In short, I think it more accurate to talk about what Superman evolved into than what was always there. Luthor got the job of being the arch-nemesis because the Ultra-Humanite was considered a little too out there. When the time was right for super heroes to have genuine romantic relationships, Lois was the obvious choice without messing with other characters and their stories like Wonder Woman, for example.

Lex was the most used antagonist that had repeated showings. The powerstone saga was excellent. Clark putting luthor through the wall is iconic. The archer, the funny face.. Etc are few the other superman's notable foes. I still think the first s shield is much more apt to the character. The suit is used in a different context now. It's used to show how much of dork superman is. That wasn't the purpose of the suit. Lois was much more active and was constantly in the middle of action. The books were action oriented.

I'm a known New 52 Superman supporter but I'd agree he's not that different. That was really the appeal to me. The differences are slight. When put together they can create a somewhat different status quo in regards to the details. Its just that the details tend to be a big deal for fans and thats' why certain things appeal to one faction while another faction is completely turned off while yet another will be indifferent entirely. So New 52 Superman wasn't that different an incarnation. He was just different in a few specific ways that led to differing reactions. Its one of the things that's intriguing about the character, that difference in details can change an impression entirely. Its why I think altering versions that on their face don't seem that different are still worth the exploration.

In fact these thoughts have been driving me to a conclusion lately that Superman benefits the least from the shared universe, staunch continuity concept.

I would like to say subtilies in characterisation can lead to massive changes in tone and perception of the character. Goldenage superman had an intensity and larger than life dashing debonair zorro-esque personality. Current superman has the personality of jesus.heck! Superman nailed zorro's charm better than any character modelled after him. Batman only got the black colour from the character.

[catman]

Is Silver Age Superman as benevolent and compassionate as current Superman?
Or is he less compassionate?

[PCN24454]

Is Silver Age Superman as benevolent and compassionate as current Superman?
Or is he less compassionate?

It’s hard to say. While he’s constantly portrayed as being benevolent and wholesome, there are lots things that he did that would now fall under Superdickery.