Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64
  1. #16
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,292

    Default

    For the most part, some of “Superman” is simply who Clark is. Red Son Superman for example still retains the idealism and optimism of Superman, even abiding by a no kill rule (that showcases why not killing people isn’t intrinsically morally superior if that’s all you feel obligated to follow). Overman, who was raised by Hitler, still retains enough of a moral core to realize “oh s*** I’m the bad guy” even if by the time he realizes it, it’s far too late to save his soul.

    The Nail shows a Superman who wasn’t raised by the Kents yet still managed to be a morally good person, he just lacked the same push to use his powers. There was an Elseworld where all of Krypton made it to Earth, and Kal still ended up siding with the humans and fighting to free them from Kryptonian oppression (by Christopher Priest). There was another Elseworld where Superman chose to use his powers to get rich, and even by the end of that he realized how empty that life was, and was on the road to becoming a hero.l by the end. Even the Superman raised by Darkseid ended up making a heel turn at the end I believe.

    So there’s a nature aspect to Superman. However it’s the nurture of the Kents that help him reach his highest potential, and if Superman was raised by other people there’s a chance he could end up being similarly damaged as Homelander. Not the same, Homelander is an idiot, he gets by solely on brute force and that’s never been Superman’s deal outside some bad stories by people who don’t get what his deal is. But “Clark Luthor” of Smallville was a sociopath raised as he was by Lionel, and he as well as Ultraman are the most “Homelanderish” Supermen given they’re entitled narcissists who think they’re gods and view others as ants to be stepped on. Even the “evil” Supermen such as Justice Lord or Injustice Supermen aren’t like that, they’re still trying to “protect” people whereas Homelander doesn’t give a **** about other people at all, only himself.

  2. #17
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    114,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    For the most part, some of “Superman” is simply who Clark is. Red Son Superman for example still retains the idealism and optimism of Superman, even abiding by a no kill rule (that showcases why not killing people isn’t intrinsically morally superior if that’s all you feel obligated to follow). Overman, who was raised by Hitler, still retains enough of a moral core to realize “oh s*** I’m the bad guy” even if by the time he realizes it, it’s far too late to save his soul.

    The Nail shows a Superman who wasn’t raised by the Kents yet still managed to be a morally good person, he just lacked the same push to use his powers. There was an Elseworld where all of Krypton made it to Earth, and Kal still ended up siding with the humans and fighting to free them from Kryptonian oppression (by Christopher Priest). There was another Elseworld where Superman chose to use his powers to get rich, and even by the end of that he realized how empty that life was, and was on the road to becoming a hero.l by the end. Even the Superman raised by Darkseid ended up making a heel turn at the end I believe.

    So there’s a nature aspect to Superman. However it’s the nurture of the Kents that help him reach his highest potential, and if Superman was raised by other people there’s a chance he could end up being similarly damaged as Homelander. Not the same, Homelander is an idiot, he gets by solely on brute force and that’s never been Superman’s deal outside some bad stories by people who don’t get what his deal is. But “Clark Luthor” of Smallville was a sociopath raised as he was by Lionel, and he as well as Ultraman are the most “Homelanderish” Supermen given they’re entitled narcissists who think they’re gods and view others as ants to be stepped on. Even the “evil” Supermen such as Justice Lord or Injustice Supermen aren’t like that, they’re still trying to “protect” people whereas Homelander doesn’t give a **** about other people at all, only himself.
    This kind of reminds me of God and Monsters Superman where it's implied Superman's inherent compassion and care for humanity comes from Lara and that he might've become a more normal Superman if not for Zod's genes.

  3. #18
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    This kind of reminds me of God and Monsters Superman where it's implied Superman's inherent compassion and care for humanity comes from Lara and that he might've become a more normal Superman if not for Zod's genes.
    I thought it was moreso that unlike Clark who grew up in a happy Norman Rockwellian America small town, Hernan grew up the son of illegal immigrants and watched his family get treated like crap. He didn’t have a happy idyllic childhood, even though his foster parents still loved him and did whatever they could for him. That gave him some deep seated anger issues that manifested in a much more aggressive manner. Still having Zod as a dad likely did play a role. In the end though he does say he wants to try to rein in the killing.

    Man Guerra really was great. Figures Timm would finally understand the appeal of Superman after he basically rebuilds Superman to his liking. Wish we got more Gods and Monsters.

  4. #19
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    114,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    I thought it was moreso that unlike Clark who grew up in a happy Norman Rockwellian America small town, Hernan grew up the son of illegal immigrants and watched his family get treated like crap. He didn’t have a happy idyllic childhood, even though his foster parents still loved him and did whatever they could for him. That gave him some deep seated anger issues that manifested in a much more aggressive manner. Still having Zod as a dad likely did play a role. In the end though he does say he wants to try to rein in the killing.

    Man Guerra really was great. Figures Timm would finally understand the appeal of Superman after he basically rebuilds Superman to his liking. Wish we got more Gods and Monsters.
    Do you think the son of Jor-El and Lara would've become the same kind of Superman from the same kind of upbringing (which I guess is what this thread is about)?

    I always assumed the Zod side in him made him react to his environment the way he did, while it was the Lara side that helped mold him into being more like what people expect from Superman, and ultimately won by the end of the movie.

  5. #20
    Astonishing Member DochaDocha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,629

    Default

    I've not read The Boys comics, and I'm only an episode into season 2 right now, so my interpretation on Homelander may be way off. I see him as kind of a blank slate character, a guy who could've been a real hero if someone taught him the way, but because he was largely neglected he just acts on immature impulses and lacks compassion for anyone. Since Vought is an organization that only serves to further its own agenda, Homelander picked that up and does the same. Tell me if I'm wrong.

    Most takes on Superman aren't so much blank slates. As others have mentioned, even takes like Red Son, Gods and Monsters, etc. show a guy who ultimately will want to do good, albeit using some objectionable methods. The Kents didn't necessarily have to be there to bring out the good in Superman, but they made sure he learned it at an early age and started off on the right foot without drastic needs for behavioral correction. And if you put particular stock in Morrison's Supes, he has what's essential Super Empathy, because why not? So, there is a difference between the two guys.

    That said, I think the average casual who watches The Boys would think that Homelander would be what you get if Superman had bad parents.

  6. #21
    Black Belt in Bad Ideas Robanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    7,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    Injustice superman and justice lord says hi. Even with good influence that guy became an authoritarian.
    Perversions are exceptions. Both are treated as wrong, and from what I hear, Injustice comics show that Clark had sketchy moments. Both are treated as alternate takes which are essentially "Superman gone bad." There was never going to be any nuance, so I don't really don't those.

    You do and that's fine, but also consider both of them had the Kents so neither actually fit the thread.

  7. #22
    Incredible Member magha_regulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    superman existed before kents existed,historicaly.so no.See these kinda questions being asked is why i say kill the kents.Superman being a product of the sun,the earth parents,the sky parents..etc is yeeesh!

    superman didn't have parents here or max fliescher cartoons.
    I completely agree with you. It is simple and elegant.

  8. #23
    Invincible Member Vordan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    26,292

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Do you think the son of Jor-El and Lara would've become the same kind of Superman from the same kind of upbringing (which I guess is what this thread is about)?

    I always assumed the Zod side in him made him react to his environment the way he did, while it was the Lara side that helped mold him into being more like what people expect from Superman, and ultimately won by the end of the movie.
    Here’s the dirty secret: Clark isn’t that different from Guerra. Issues with his temper? Clark has those. Temptations to use lethal force on s***heads? Clark definitely struggles with those. He’s usually less of an authoritarian than Guerra, it usually takes him more of a push to start thinking he should run things, but that has happened as well.

    Would Clark be the exact same? No, Guerra was quicker to consider the idea of taking over than I think Clark would. Even Red Son Superman who was basically groomed to take over didn’t really desire to do so and had to be more or less forced into the role (or at least he felt forced). That’s something that I think can be attributed to his Zod heritage. Would Clark have a much more cynical outlook like Guerra if he was raised by illegal immigrants instead of the Kents? Bluntly yes. A Clark raised in that environment isn’t going to have the same optimism or idealism. He’s not going to have as much inbuilt faith in humanity’s inherent goodness, or about America’s for that matter. Doesn’t mean he’d be a killer, that’s another thing Guerra was quick to embrace and can be attributed to Zod, but Clark definitely wouldn’t have the same approach towards heroism as mainline Clark does.

  9. #24
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,220

    Default

    Pschological development is a murky topic, it's really not so simple as A+B=C. In the Silver Age there was a story where a perfect double of Superman was raised from infancy to adulthood by a Bonnie and Clyde style gangster couple. That Superman grew up idolizing the criminal life but at then end of it all he still managed to break free of his upbringing and ended up sacrificing his life to save Superman.

    Meanwhile Injustice Superman had a pretty bog standard Rockwellian upbringing to my knowledge but went full dictator.

    Then you have Overman who was pumped full of Nazi propaganda but ended up resentful of his role in Nazi victory of his dimension.

    It's why I prefer his Silver Age backstory. A well rounded background helps Superman imo.
    Rules are for lesser men, Charlie - Grand Pa Joe ~ Willy Wonka & Chocolate Factory

  10. #25
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    114,772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    Here’s the dirty secret: Clark isn’t that different from Guerra. Issues with his temper? Clark has those. Temptations to use lethal force on s***heads? Clark definitely struggles with those. He’s usually less of an authoritarian than Guerra, it usually takes him more of a push to start thinking he should run things, but that has happened as well.

    Would Clark be the exact same? No, Guerra was quicker to consider the idea of taking over than I think Clark would. Even Red Son Superman who was basically groomed to take over didn’t really desire to do so and had to be more or less forced into the role (or at least he felt forced). That’s something that I think can be attributed to his Zod heritage. Would Clark have a much more cynical outlook like Guerra if he was raised by illegal immigrants instead of the Kents? Bluntly yes. A Clark raised in that environment isn’t going to have the same optimism or idealism. He’s not going to have as much inbuilt faith in humanity’s inherent goodness, or about America’s for that matter. Doesn’t mean he’d be a killer, that’s another thing Guerra was quick to embrace and can be attributed to Zod, but Clark definitely wouldn’t have the same approach towards heroism as mainline Clark does.
    I'm not denying they have similar traits, just that Clark has better restraint.

    I guess if we believe the Kents and living in Smallville was that instrumental to Clark's idealism and belief in humanity rather than inherent character trait...

  11. #26
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I'm not denying they have similar traits, just that Clark has better restraint.

    I guess if we believe the Kents and living in Smallville was that instrumental to Clark's idealism and belief in humanity rather than inherent character trait...
    So many different versions of Superman over the decades, that I suppose each reader can go with their own gut feeling.

    Mine own is that certainly the original take is that Superman is inherently good...he’s primarily driven by a sense of justice and helping people, not out to benefit himself.

    That was given shape by the Kent’s...with other parents (or another background) he might have done good by other means (e.g. large scale engineering projects, science, medicine) but he would do some good.

    These what if guys who go to the dark side for various reasons? In my eyes..not Superman or any version of him...just villains with a similar power set.

  12. #27
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    791

    Default

    I don't know how it works in real life, but I know how I would do it in the comics.
    1: genetics
    2: education
    3: experience
    Superman has the genetics to be a good person, so it depends on the education and experiences he has, if he is mistreated but manages to go out (young) and live his own life, he will be a good man, but if he lives the life of his parents and The only thing he knows is the matrato, it will be bad.

  13. #28
    The Man Who Cannot Die manwhohaseverything's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    9,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vordan View Post
    A Clark raised in that environment isn’t going to have the same optimism or idealism.
    I would disagree clark has true optimism or idealism .An optimism that is untested by hard and harsh realities tucked away in farmlands away from all the monsters.An idealism untested by thd trials and practicalities of the world and lacking the strength of conviction and resolve.An optimist is a person who goes through hardship still believing positive outcomes.An idealist makes compromises but will stand by his ideal even if the whole world says no.captain in mcu is idealist.All clark has is naivete.He is just a fish out of water constantly pining for it.ww in her movie was naive too.But,that at least work she is from a cutoff society which is practically very,very different.Clark feels like he has head in the soil.

  14. #29
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    4,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I would disagree clark has true optimism or idealism .An optimism that is untested by hard and harsh realities tucked away in farmlands away from all the monsters.An idealism untested by thd trials and practicalities of the world and lacking the strength of conviction and resolve.An optimist is a person who goes through hardship still believing positive outcomes.An idealist makes compromises but will stand by his ideal even if the whole world says no.
    Clark didn't stop getting obstacles in his life after Smallville, that was just part of who he became but it was a big foundation. He was also a teenager living in the middle of nowhere on a farm, and what was the bedrock of his ideology was what the Kents taught him - to be a good man. His optimism is tested constantly as an adult and a super-hero. Optimism isn't optimism because it gets destroyed by the world, that's how you get Lex Luthor. The world hurt him because he didn't understand it properly so he gave up on it and embraced his inner sadism. What does Superman say "yes" to? He doesn't let Lex walk over him, Intergang fears him, Darkseid constantly tries to destroy him physically and psychologically, he has an endless rogues gallery of villains obsessed with killing him.


    captain in mcu is idealist.All clark has is naivete.He is just a fish out of water constantly pining for it.ww in her movie was naive too.But,that at least work she is from a cutoff society which is practically very,very different.Clark feels like he has head in the soil.
    MCU Cap is what Superman should be like in the movies, and what is Clark pining for? That was the story arc for her character in the movie, which was the point.

  15. #30
    Astonishing Member JackDaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manwhohaseverything View Post
    I would disagree clark has true optimism or idealism .An optimism that is untested by hard and harsh realities tucked away in farmlands away from all the monsters.An idealism untested by thd trials and practicalities of the world and lacking the strength of conviction and resolve.An optimist is a person who goes through hardship still believing positive outcomes.An idealist makes compromises but will stand by his ideal even if the whole world says no.captain in mcu is idealist.All clark has is naivete.He is just a fish out of water constantly pining for it.ww in her movie was naive too.But,that at least work she is from a cutoff society which is practically very,very different.Clark feels like he has head in the soil.
    He didn’t stay on the farm!

    He went out into the wider world, became a renowned reporter in one part of his life...and confronted all sorts of evil directly in another.

Posting Permissions

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