How much can you change a character before it’s no longer said character?

[mathew101281]

What are the fundamental elements that make Superman, “Superman!” ?

What core, parts of Batman can be removed without turning the character into something unrecognizable?

[Holt]

To me, Reeve said it best when he said Superman at his core is a friend when you need one the most. I firmly believe missing this is why so many attempts at modernizing the character by trying to emphasize his supposed badassedness fall flat.

[Riv86672]

To me, Reeve said it best when he said Superman at his core is a friend when you need one the most. I firmly believe missing this is why so many attempts at modernizing the character by trying to emphasize his supposed badassedness fall flat.

^^^hear hear.

My opinion(s).
As long as creators remember Clark is SuperMAN, not just SUPERman, they’ll be okay.

Batman is the real identity, Bruce is the disguise. Don’t try and reinvent the wheel w. that concept.

[Jim Kelly]

Batman is the real identity, Bruce is the disguise. Don’t try and reinvent the wheel w. that concept.

That's funny. Because, to me, that's one of the reinventions of the wheel that has changed Bill Finger and Bob Kane's creation. There's nothing in Finger and Kane that says Bruce isn't a real guy. Like Sir Percy Blakeney, he might put on a front for the public. But the real guy is the boy that was born to Martha and Thomas Wayne, who loved them and lost them at an early age, and who has been traumatized by that experience. Batman is just a front he puts on to deal with that pain. Bruce created the Batman identity, not the other way around.

The Theseus' Ship of Batman has had so many parts changed out that I don't know if the character is really the same guy anymore. It's a case where the publisher can keep changing Batman because they own the rights and, as long as they call it Batman, they can get away with it. It's Batman, because they say it is; but I don't believe them.

[sunofdarkchild]

I would have said 'no killing' for Batman, but a bazillion people love the Burton movies and consider that the definitive Batman even though he's a sociopathic murderer. So you can literally change their entire moral compass and have them act completely OOC and have it be considered ok.

[titanfan]

The answer is different with every character and depends on how long they've been around, what forms of media they've been presented in etc.

There have been many takes with Superman/Batman where I've thought "This is totally a different person". New 52 re-introduced a bunch of heroes I found unrecognizable. Sometimes it's a small but totally devastating change. With Superman, he's gone through many changes, powers, costume, maritial status etc. and he's been mostly the same. (Or if someone has a bad take on him, it's easy to revert back) In a sense, the longer the character has been around, sometimes the harder it is to permanently change their core characteristics.

[I'm a Fish]

I think with Wonder Woman, Christie Marston who is the Granddaughter of her creators, said it best:

CM: “Wonder Woman’s wandered, she’s strayed away so many times over the years, particularly in the comic, and would pretty much almost fade away. But every time she goes back to her core values, there’s a resurgence.”

I: “And let’s talk a little bit about those core values. So again, she was modeled after your grandmother. She was a huge influence.”

CM: “It’s just all inclusive. Fair play is critical. This person and this person are always equal. You try not to kick their ass. If you can’t talk them out of it, you do what you have to do. Get things done. Don’t ever let anything stop you.”

I: “One of the things that everyone knows Wonder Woman for is that she’s huge a feminist icon. Your grandmother was a feminist before that word was even really thrown around.”

CM: “But she’s about fair play. It’s not just women, it’s everybody. And that’s critical to how you look at her.”

I: “But, I think this is why she makes such a great icon. She is for everyone.”

CM: “Absolutely everybody.”

To me, Reeve said it best when he said Superman at his core is a friend when you need one the most. I firmly believe missing this is why so many attempts at modernizing the character by trying to emphasize his supposed badassedness fall flat.

I feel the same.

I would have said 'no killing' for Batman, but a bazillion people love the Burton movies and consider that the definitive Batman even though he's a sociopathic murderer. So you can literally change their entire moral compass and have them act completely OOC and have it be considered ok.

These characters have existed longer than most people have been alive. Most people don’t know what the original character was like.

[Tzigone]

That's funny. Because, to me, that's one of the reinventions of the wheel that has changed Bill Finger and Bob Kane's creation. There's nothing in Finger and Kane that says Bruce isn't a real guy. Like Sir Percy Blakeney, he might put on a front for the public. But the real guy is the boy that was born to Martha and Thomas Wayne, who loved them and lost them at an early age, and who has been traumatized by that experience. Batman is just a front he puts on to deal with that pain. Bruce created the Batman identity, not the other way around.

I very much agree with the first part, that Bruce is a real full person (not very fond of continuing Brucie caricature and emotional isolation of Bruce the civilian). Not so much the second. For me, Batman is not a front to deal with the pain - it's a designed theatricality to carry out his goal. It's an affectation. It's a strategy because of those cowardly, superstitious criminals. Obviously, that's just one version, but it's my preferred. I prefer Batman as a healthy outlet for Bruce's desire to prevent this ever happening again. I know it's not exactly realistic that dressing up and being a vigilante is healthy, but it's how it was originally presented. I prefer a Bruce motivated by the murder of his parents, but not consumed by it.

[Agent Z]

The answer is different with every character and depends on how long they've been around, what forms of media they've been presented in etc.

There have been many takes with Superman/Batman where I've thought "This is totally a different person". New 52 re-introduced a bunch of heroes I found unrecognizable. Sometimes it's a small but totally devastating change. With Superman, he's gone through many changes, powers, costume, maritial status etc. and he's been mostly the same. (Or if someone has a bad take on him, it's easy to revert back) In a sense, the longer the character has been around, sometimes the harder it is to permanently change their core characteristics.

This is the best answer.

[achilles]

To me, Reeve said it best when he said Superman at his core is a friend when you need one the most. I firmly believe missing this is why so many attempts at modernizing the character by trying to emphasize his supposed badassedness fall flat.

Yeah, way too many attempts to make characters "badass" who while they might be in some circumstances, aren't fundamentally about that quality, as Reeve said with Superman being at his core that friend. Or as Brando put it in the movies, he's also the light that shows the rest of us the way, a very aspirational character.

Physical qualities like powers are all too often being mistaken for characterization, when they're not. Just jacking up a character's powers might please a section of that character's fans for a while, but if that's the only reason it's being done, or it's being done because the writers can't think of any other thing to do with the character---then it's just a short term sugar fix. Those stories will be long forgotten when the stories that stay true to the character's raison d'être will still be celebrated.

[mathew101281]

I very much agree with the first part, that Bruce is a real full person (not very fond of continuing Brucie caricature and emotional isolation of Bruce the civilian). Not so much the second. For me, Batman is not a front to deal with the pain - it's a designed theatricality to carry out his goal. It's an affectation. It's a strategy because of those cowardly, superstitious criminals. Obviously, that's just one version, but it's my preferred. I prefer Batman as a healthy outlet for Bruce's desire to prevent this ever happening again. I know it's not exactly realistic that dressing up and being a vigilante is healthy, but it's how it was originally presented. I prefer a Bruce motivated by the murder of his parents, but not consumed by it.

To me it’s like this

There is Batman, a persona He created to deal with the death of his parents.
There is Public Bruce Wayne, the billionaire playboy most people see.
And there’s private Bruce Wayne, the guy who talks with Alfred everyday, and struggles not to be consumed by the Batman persona he has created.

The third one is the “real’”man the other two are personas.

[Jim Kelly]

I very much agree with the first part, that Bruce is a real full person (not very fond of continuing Brucie caricature and emotional isolation of Bruce the civilian). Not so much the second. For me, Batman is not a front to deal with the pain - it's a designed theatricality to carry out his goal. It's an affectation. It's a strategy because of those cowardly, superstitious criminals. Obviously, that's just one version, but it's my preferred. I prefer Batman as a healthy outlet for Bruce's desire to prevent this ever happening again. I know it's not exactly realistic that dressing up and being a vigilante is healthy, but it's how it was originally presented. I prefer a Bruce motivated by the murder of his parents, but not consumed by it.

Your post is closer to what I think than what I actually posted--it was early in the morning and I wasn't completely awake yet. Batman is Bruce's healthy response to the tragedy visited upon him.

I wouldn't overcomplicate it. Bob Kane worked on Batman for twenty-five years and Bill Finger for just short of that--so they had plenty of time to flesh out the psychology if they wanted to do that. They left a lot up to the reader. And I think this psychoanalysis should be in the realm of fan theories and fan fiction. What made Batman interesting is you could find in him what you wanted. The stories didn't spell everything out. That didn't start to happen until the 1970s, when writers got into his psychology.

I prefer it the other way and not having everything about him so nailed down.

[Ra-El]

That's one of the biggest questions in comics and pop culture in general, imo.

And the answer is different for every character, some are easier to find the line, others not so much.

[SiegePerilous02]

^^^hear hear.

My opinion(s).
As long as creators remember Clark is SuperMAN, not just SUPERman, they’ll be okay.

Batman is the real identity, Bruce is the disguise. Don’t try and reinvent the wheel w. that concept.

That's funny. Because, to me, that's one of the reinventions of the wheel that has changed Bill Finger and Bob Kane's creation. There's nothing in Finger and Kane that says Bruce isn't a real guy. Like Sir Percy Blakeney, he might put on a front for the public. But the real guy is the boy that was born to Martha and Thomas Wayne, who loved them and lost them at an early age, and who has been traumatized by that experience. Batman is just a front he puts on to deal with that pain. Bruce created the Batman identity, not the other way around.

The Theseus' Ship of Batman has had so many parts changed out that I don't know if the character is really the same guy anymore. It's a case where the publisher can keep changing Batman because they own the rights and, as long as they call it Batman, they can get away with it. It's Batman, because they say it is; but I don't believe them.

It definitely used to be that of the two personas, Superman was closer to the real person and the public Clark Kent was the disguise. And Bruce was the real person with Batman as his theatrical disguise. At some point they switched, and IMO both became less interesting as a result. An alien god trying to be human to fit in without realizing how human that is is way more interesting than a guy with a normal mentality and upbringing that just happens to be able to fly and be invicible. Bruce meanwhile just became more and more cold and unpleasant to read about.

I think the either/or with the identities doesn't really work with either character. I definitely lean towards the pre-Crisis models, but even then it's closer to the truth that the real Clark Kal-El Kent is a mix of his two main identities. Same with the real Bruce Wayne only being seen by a select few like Dick and Alfred. I think trying to play them as contrasting opposites in an attempt to make them seem "deeper" actually always has the opposite effect.

[Tzigone]

An alien god trying to be human to fit in without realizing how human that is is way more interesting than a guy with a normal mentality and upbringing that just happens to be able to fly and be invicible. Bruce meanwhile just became more and more cold and unpleasant to read about.

I think that's not the original Superman, either. He wasn't an alien god - he was superpowered, certainly, but nowhere near god-level the first few years. And, of course, originally, he had no idea of his origins, and was very human in behavior and did have a normal mentality. I much prefer that to the silver age version.