What is your ideal Superman? (Take the Quiz!)

[superduperman]

Edit: The scene from SUPERMAN II (is it Lester or Donner or both?) never rings true for me. In the context of the movie, it doesn't work. I reject it--not because it isn't my Superman, but because it's bad writing, given everything we know from the rest of the movie. It's there for a laugh, but the movie sacrifices everything it's established for the sake of a joke.

All of the goofy stuff was Lester. Donner wanted the material to be more serious. Any scene where it looks out of place or silly was Lester.

[BBally]

Probably from being neutral on many preferences, I did get Bronze Age. But I dig the description

While just as powerful as he was in the Silver Age, this version of Superman often contemplated the effect he had on the world. He also decided to put more effort into developing his life as Clark the journalist, instead of just relying on Clark as a disguise.

Agreed
.

There are parts of the quiz where I picked Neutral/Somewhat Agree too like both "Clark" is his real personality; "Superman" is more of a pretend role and "The "Clark Kent" identity is mostly a disguise; Superman is his real personality, as I prefer the option that both the Clark Kent and Superman personas are part of the real identity but also partially disguises.

[Lightning Rider]

There are parts of the quiz where I picked Neutral/Somewhat Agree too like both "Clark" is his real personality; "Superman" is more of a pretend role and "The "Clark Kent" identity is mostly a disguise; Superman is his real personality, as I prefer the option that both the Clark Kent and Superman personas are part of the real identity but also partially disguises.

I picked neutral on those questions too.

[Agent Z]

Look, this is the kind of thing that movies throw in because they know audiences will love this kind of popcorn stuff.
How many times have people been bullied in life? Wanting to be able to have the power of Superman to turn the tables?
People loved, I mean loved, this scene in Superman II. Is it dopey? You bet. I don't think it is as bad as the first
Superman movie (a film I like by the way) where Superman violates the space-time continuum to change time to go rescue
Lois after she dies.

The reality is that a major film will take liberties. Sometimes, as we have seen lately, with things like Man of Steel a lot of
liberties.

Not as many as you think.

Though it is funny you mentioned Superman II given how many complained about him trashing the bully's truck in MoS.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I got Silver Age every time, my only nitpick, power, the most powerful unchallenged version of Superman is Golden Age Superman. He is completely unmatched by the universe around him and his powers grow exponentially issue to issue.

[Mace Dolex]

My pick was All-Star Superman but in that story Clark Kent puts on the "nerd" at the Daily Planet I prefer the way John Bryne wrote Clark Kent as more outgoing.

[Iclifton]

I had no idea New 52 Superman had so many fans. I liked Morrisons run but other than that I do not remember any sorties sticking out. What is it about the New 52 ersion that people latched onto.

[DochaDocha]

I had no idea New 52 Superman had so many fans. I liked Morrisons run but other than that I do not remember any sorties sticking out. What is it about the New 52 ersion that people latched onto.

As a New 52 fan, I'm comfortable saying the idea behind the character probably was better than most of what we actually read.

Actually, that's true for most incarnations of Superman, but there were some really tight ideas for New 52.

[TheCape]

I got All Star Superman, nice i guest, he is definetly a version that i enjoy. Probably for statying neutral to many questions.

[Jim Kelly]

Silver Age:

Silver Age Superman is one of the most powerful incarnations of Superman. While this version was very much in touch with his Kryptonian roots, he also came to represent mainstream US values. This version largely inspired Christopher Reeve's 1978 interpretation of the character in the movie "Superman".

I'm not sure if I completely agree, although I can see why people today would make the association between Chris Reeve Superman and the 1960s or 1970s Superman.

As I've probably posted too many times on this board, the first day I went to see SUPERMAN (1978) at the movie theatre, I sat through it twice. The first time, while I enjoyed the movie a lot, I was too stuck on all the ways it was NOT my Superman. So I had to sit through it again, to relax and enjoy it for what it was rather than what I had expected it to be.

How it's NOT the Superman of the 1960s or 1970s:

• Krypton is completely different--and Jor-El and Lara Lor-Van look nothing like themselves
• Clark was never Superboy and he never met Luthor when he was young
• The Kents live on a farm somewhere in the Mid-West (actually Alberta) and not near Metropolis (nor do they run a general store and Martha survives Jonathan)
• Jimmy Olsen is a photographer and he doesn't have red hair
• Luthor acts nothing like himself
• The Phantom Zone is absurd--some sort of flying mirror in space?

Furthermore, Clark is still a print reporter, whereas he was a T.V. news broadcaster in the comics at that time. And there are other inconsistencies that bothered me in the first showing. But by the time the movie came up on the screen again, I completely made my peace with that and accepted this as a different adaptation of the material.

To me, there was a lot in the movie that was referencing the pre-1960s Superman--the Superman of Bud Collyer, Kirk Alyn and George Reeves. Given a couple of the writers had done IT'S A BIRD . . . IT'S A PLANE . . . IT'S SUPERMAN--and that comes across as already out of date with the 1960s comic books--that might be why the movie has those qualities. At the same time, the movie was breaking with tradition and presenting the Man of Steel in a completely modern way, beyond what the comics had done with him (which is probably why John Byrne liked this version so much).

On the other hand, Christopher Reeve looked a lot like the Curt Swan Superman--which was highlighted by the publisher before the movie came out. And the movie's spirit felt familiar. So it wasn't completely divorced from what I knew Superman to be.

[RobinGA]

I had some of the same reaction to the original film. Not to the degree of wanting to see it twice.
I didn't have the money anyway.

But Krypton didn't look anything like I had imagined. It was more than a little shocking. But when
I heard John Williams' triumphal music I was good. I didn't love everything about the movie. But it
was still such an amazing experience to sit in a theater, to watch it come alive. In the years that
followed rewatching it means you can see all of the things that strike you as off.

But then that comes back to your head canon, your sense of how Superman should act, behave, beliefs.
It is what I suppose offended me so about Man of Steel. I'm not sure other heroes have
the same standard in the DC universe. Maybe Wonder Woman. But Superman has this moral grandeur,
that makes him important. What was the line from the old Superman novels in my youth put it: if Superman
did not exist, we would have to invent him.

I love Batman, but let us be honest here it is not the same with him. Nor do I think with many of other
heroes in the DC universe. Not knocking them, just being honest. At times this is probably what rubs some
people the wrong way about big blue.

[Vishop]

I got All Star Superman, nice i guest, he is definetly a version that i enjoy. Probably for statying neutral to many questions.

if you like Morrison and his ASS, then I suggest reading Superman Beyond if you haven't read it yet. It is a tie in Final Crisis but its a self contained story. It was a great book.

[BBally]

As a New 52 fan, I'm comfortable saying the idea behind the character probably was better than most of what we actually read.

Actually, that's true for most incarnations of Superman, but there were some really tight ideas for New 52.

New52 Superman was simply a victim of inconsistent editorial mandate, nobody had a real plan of how the character should be portrayed or what lore was going to be set for the character post-Morrison and post-Perez. He had some good stories and idea but a lot of it was being weighed down by editorial creative with no guidance.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I think Jeans Superman was the greatest addition to the Superman myth but someone pointed out how that was Conner Kent first! The Cape being indestructible again was nice as was all the Krypton stuff. I think Christopher Reeve looked much more gentle than I imagined Superman or Curt Swans version. García López looks more like Reeve to me.

(Reeve or Reeves?)

[Jim Kelly]

I had some of the same reaction to the original film. Not to the degree of wanting to see it twice.
I didn't have the money anyway.

The thing was, back then, if you paid for one showing they let you stay in the theatre for the next showing without paying more. You could stay there all day, if you wanted. That's why I stayed in my seat for the next showing on that first day.

Mind you, I did go back again several times after. And how I afforded to do that, I don't know.