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.
No matter how many reboots, new origins, reinterpretations or suit redesigns. In the end, he will always be SUPERMAN
Credit for avatar goes to zclark
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.
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.
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.
I got All Star Superman, nice i guest, he is definetly a version that i enjoy. Probably for statying neutral to many questions.
"Wow. You made Spider-Man sad, congratulations. I stabbed The Hulk last week"
Wolverine, Venom Annual # 1 (2018)
Nobody does it better by Jeff Loveness
"I am Thou, Thou Art I"
Persona
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.
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.
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.
No matter how many reboots, new origins, reinterpretations or suit redesigns. In the end, he will always be SUPERMAN
Credit for avatar goes to zclark
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?)
Last edited by Johnny Thunders!; 09-22-2021 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Christopher Reeves! I guess it’s Reeve!
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.