What do you think of when you hear the phrase ''classic Superman''?

[Jon Clark]

I'd say "Classic Superman" is pretty much the core concepts that were around in most adaptations. It isn't the Bronze Age with TV anchor Clark or the Silver Age stuff with Kandor/Legion/elastic Lad. It isn't necessarily the Reeve/Donner films.

It's Clark/Superman working as a reporter for the Planet alongside Lois and Jimmy. It's Superman as an unquestioned hero/boon to society and sure of his own identity. It's him as both "strange visitor from another planet" and "mild mannered reporter". It's Superman as the metaphoric most powerful man around without going into specifics about his limits (so it might be "bending steel in his bare hands" or "tossing planets" depending on the situation). Lex as a wanted fugitive rather than a long-term untouchable businessman. Whetehr both of the Kents were dead or just back in Smallville they didn't play a role in Clark's day-to-day life. It's the status quo of the serials, the 50's TV show, the Donner film, and even Lois & Clark. to an extent (I wouldn't put the marriage or Lois knowing as classic).

[bat39]

I think it’s comic book “classic” Superman, definitely… but I think the larger pop culture one is shaped by the more post-crisis-friendly Tv shows and cartoons as it is the Donner films’ Silver Age elements.

For instance, I think Businessman Lex is now a “classic” archetype thanks to Lois and Clark, Smallville, and STAS.

Agreed. One need look no further than Superman: Space Age to see how pervasive the Post-COIE influence on the Superman mythos is, even in a series that's literally set in the Silver Age era.

spoilers:

We have Businessman Lex, Jonathan and Martha Kent alive when Clark becomes Superman, and eventually, Clark and Lois getting married and having a kid.

end of spoilers

If this is about artistic renditions then it would to be between Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Jerry Ordway, Kerry Gammill, George Perez and the nigh incomparable John Byrne. Any of these inking Byrne equals EXCELLENCE

Agreed. Curt Swan as well of course.

You're absolutely right, a lot of adaptations pull from the Bronze Age and up. But 90% of what those stories use, in both the source material and the adaptations, originate from the Silver Age. I agree with you that the Silver Age provided the raw materials that later ages refined, developed, and perfected....but that's all still building off of the Silver; the mythos is still cemented in a lot of stuff introduced in that era, and if they evolved and developed beyond those early iterations, it's still coming from a Silver source.

And no, there's not really a "wrong" answer here....but I think this is one of those semi-unusual instances in literature where some answers are more right than others. In any case, I think you and I are on about the same page with it, or at least pretty close.



In larger media? Yeah I'm pretty sure Donner is what's considered "THE classic." But I consider Donner to be a slice of the Silver/Bronze Age anyway.

Yeah we are mostly on the same page I guess and it's really a matter of semantics. But just continuing to play Devil's Advocate for a second - if I accept the logic you've outlined in the bolded part above, that all the later stuff that's considered ''classic'' is built off Silver Age sources, then that applies to the Golden Age as well, since Superman as a character and concept himself is building off what was established in Golden Age sources!

The way I see it, the Golden Age established the basics, the Silver Age was a wild period of creativity that rapidly expanded the mythos, and then later iterations sort of distilled all that into the versions we now consider iconic or ''classic'' - the Bronze Age (which is basically an evolution of the Silver Age), Byrne's Post-COIE reboot, and of course, the Donner movie.

The Donner movie in particular is worth noting here, since it was really a very ''back to basics'' stripped-down approach to Superman. I daresay it created a sort of 'platonic ideal' of Superman that most adaptations since have followed. The Post-COIE reboot took a similar stripped-down ''back to basics'' approach, albeit one that ended up with some pretty radical (at the time) changes like Businessman Lex, both Kents being alive and active supporting cast members (Martha was alive in the movies but she never really appeared again after Clark left Smallville), Clark being the real identity etc. Over time, many of these Post-COIE changes have blended in which the 'platonic ideal' of Superman that Donner created to give us what I feel is the current understanding of a ''classic Superman''.

[bat39]

I'd say "Classic Superman" is pretty much the core concepts that were around in most adaptations. It isn't the Bronze Age with TV anchor Clark or the Silver Age stuff with Kandor/Legion/elastic Lad. It isn't necessarily the Reeve/Donner films.

It's Clark/Superman working as a reporter for the Planet alongside Lois and Jimmy. It's Superman as an unquestioned hero/boon to society and sure of his own identity. It's him as both "strange visitor from another planet" and "mild mannered reporter". It's Superman as the metaphoric most powerful man around without going into specifics about his limits (so it might be "bending steel in his bare hands" or "tossing planets" depending on the situation). Lex as a wanted fugitive rather than a long-term untouchable businessman. Whetehr both of the Kents were dead or just back in Smallville they didn't play a role in Clark's day-to-day life. It's the status quo of the serials, the 50's TV show, the Donner film, and even Lois & Clark. to an extent (I wouldn't put the marriage or Lois knowing as classic).

I agree with you with everything except Lex. I think at this point, Lex as the untouchable businessman is about as ''classic'' as any of the other things you mentioned. Honestly, I think the best iterations of Lex are the ones which seamlessly blend Lex as the mad scientist/super-villain with Lex as the corrupt corporate mogul. Lex in the green battlesuit fighting Superman is as iconic as Lex in his business suit sitting in his office while Superman hovers outside the windows.

I think a good rule of thumb for how ''classic'' an adaptation, or a particular idea from it, has become is how often it persists even when efforts are made to roll back other changes, or even in works that are meant to be a deliberate throwback to past eras.

As a case in point - the crystal Fortress. Its the default Fortress look now across media. But what's really interesting is how a retro-looking version of it made it into Superman Smashes the Klan - a story that's based on a 40's radio serial and is visually meant to be a throwback to the Golden Age-era Fleischer cartoons. The fact that this element from a 1978 film was backported into a story set in (and inspired by source material from) the 1940's shows you just how much of a touchstone its become.

Businessman Lex is in the same boat. We see him in Superman: The Space Age, a book that's set during a version of the Silver Age/Bronze Age. Spacey's Lex in Superman Returns, a film that's meant to be a direct sequel and a throwback to Donner's Superman film, has also become a crooked businessman. The New 52 rolled a lot of stuff back to the Golden Age/Silver Age status quos, but Lex Luthor as a businessman is an idea that persisted, even as he also became more like his old mad scientist self.

On the marriage and kids, I don't consider them to be ''classic'' by themselves, but they are a logical progression from the classic status quo in my book.

[DochaDocha]

I tend to think of the 60s and 70s, but as far as specific elements go I look for the following:

1. Costume - either the Reeve costume or as it was drawn during this time, meaning trunks and cape shield.
2. Triangle for two - this, to me, is bread-and-butter Superman. I argue that not only was it the status quo for decades, but it was such an appealing aspect for young comic readers that it's one of several important reasons why Superman became as popular as he was. Modern day Superman doesn't do this, though for good reason, but it also means I think we're working with a less popular iteration of the character.
3. Born on Krypton, raised in Smallville, moved to Metropolis - Not a lot of people strayed from this, though Byrne notably did with his birthing matrix. In other words, the birthing matrix is not "classic Superman."
4. Luthor is his main villain
5. Superman is an upper-tier hero - if you start making arguments how he couldn't beat such-and-such hero or whatever, then you're deviating from "classic"
6. He's straightfowardly a good guy - doesn't necessarily mean he's a boy scout, but good for goodness' sake is largely all the motivation he needs, a stark contrast from Batman and Spider-man.


That's my criteria, not a whole lot to it, but as long as you nail these things I think you're working off the "Classic Superman" mold.

Edit:
7. Mild-mannered reporter working for the Daily Planet - this is tough to do in the modern era, so modern interpretations of "classic Superman" might not be for the best unless you give it 2022 tweaks. But if you give Clark Kent a civilian job and it's something else, then it's not "classic."

[bat39]

I tend to think of the 60s and 70s, but as far as specific elements go I look for the following:

1. Costume - either the Reeve costume or as it was drawn during this time, meaning trunks and cape shield.
2. Triangle for two - this, to me, is bread-and-butter Superman. I argue that not only was it the status quo for decades, but it was such an appealing aspect for young comic readers that it's one of several important reasons why Superman became as popular as he was. Modern day Superman doesn't do this, though for good reason, but it also means I think we're working with a less popular iteration of the character.
3. Born on Krypton, raised in Smallville, moved to Metropolis - Not a lot of people strayed from this, though Byrne notably did with his birthing matrix. In other words, the birthing matrix is not "classic Superman."
4. Luthor is his main villain
5. Superman is an upper-tier hero - if you start making arguments how he couldn't beat such-and-such hero or whatever, then you're deviating from "classic"
6. He's straightfowardly a good guy - doesn't necessarily mean he's a boy scout, but good for goodness' sake is largely all the motivation he needs, a stark contrast from Batman and Spider-man.


That's my criteria, not a whole lot to it, but as long as you nail these things I think you're working off the "Classic Superman" mold.

Edit:
7. Mild-mannered reporter working for the Daily Planet - this is tough to do in the modern era, so modern interpretations of "classic Superman" might not be for the best unless you give it 2022 tweaks. But if you give Clark Kent a civilian job and it's something else, then it's not "classic."

The birthing matrix is an interesting one - it's probably the one Post-COIE change Byrne made that has since been thoroughly rejected, even by adaptations like Lois & Clark or STAS that are heavily influenced by Byrne's work in other respects. Honestly, I dunno what Byrne was hoping to accomplish with that, apart from making a technical argument that Superman was born on earth in Kansas and thus is 100% a 'legit' American citizen. I suppose part of his motivation was to lean into the whole ''Clark Kent is the real identity'' aspect but that certainly didn't need Clark to literally be born on earth!

[9th.]

This guy

[Lightning Rider]

When I hear the phrase, I assume people are conjuring images of Reeve. In fact, I assume someone talking about "classic" probably doesn't read comics, or they'd refer to a specific era. They're referring to a pop culture idea, a blend of Super Friends iconography and Chris Reeve.

[superduperman]

Mostly the pre-Crisis Superman and Curt Swan art.

[Thor-Ul]

More than classic I think what I think most is of "archetypal"(that is as the ideal model). ANd that is a mix of differnt elements from silver to Byrne ' Superman.

Because for classic I understand the Fleisher and golden age Superman as classic .

[bat39]

More than classic I think what I think most is of "archetypal"(that is as the ideal model). ANd that is a mix of differnt elements from silver to Byrne ' Superman.

Because for classic I understand the Fleisher and golden age Superman as classic.

Yeah that's a good way of putting it.

My own evolving idea of how an element becomes a part of ''classic Superman'' is that it's when it endures beyond the specific story/adaptation/project that it was originally introduced in to become part of the ''archetype'' (as you put it) of Superman that people have in their minds.

The look of the Fleischer cartoons has endured to an extent (it inspired STAS for starters) - the red-S-on-black-triangle look, while not has iconic as the red-S-on-yellow-triangle, has found resonance over the decades in Superman Smashes the Klan, the early 2000's comics, Kingdom Come and even in flashbacks in S&L. And of course, the Fleischer cartoons introduced Superman's ability to fly, which is as ''classic'' and ''archetypal'' as it gets. So the Fleischer cartoons has some claim to classic status.

The Silver Age introduced TONS of stuff, but I'd argue that its the use of those concepts in the Donner movies or Post-COIE that have really refined those concepts into the form most people are familiar with these days - the crystal Fortress being a prime example, the depiction of General Zod (and Ursa and Non) being another.

Byrne introduced a lot of stuff that I'd argue has become ''classic'' over the last 36 years - the Kents being alive and Clark returning to meet them in Smallville, businessman Lex, Clark Kent being the real identity (or at least as real as Superman or Kal-El) etc.

I dunno about the marriage - Lois & Clark was the first big adaptation to have it (simultaneous with the comics) and it was almost 30 years ago, but is it part of the ''classic'' Superman? It has started popping up in adaptations a lot more frequently and was even brought back in the comics. Time will tell, since the definition of what's ''classic'' is not static but evolves over time. I see the marriage as an evolution of the classic status quo and I see it potentially becoming a ''classic'' element over time. Anyway, the idea that Superman is destined to marry Lois isn't one that originated in the 90's...I think it's something that's always been on the cards, implicitly or explicitly (except perhaps in Silver Age comics that gave Lana equal status as a love interest).

Now, if we talk about stuff that to my mind hasn't become ''classic'' (and mark my words, this is highly subjective) - well the birthing matrix is obviously one of them. I hate to say it, but Superboy (as in Clark as Superboy) doesn't seem to be particularly ''classic'' either - it's never been fully restored to the comics after COIE and adaptations like Smallville (and various other stories in comics and other media) have presented more enduring narratives about what Clark was doing before he became Superman. Superman and Wonder Woman being an item isn't likely to ever become ''classic'' either. Clark as a TV reporter at WGBS is also something that hasn't stood the test of time at all.

[DABellWrites]

This was inspired by the other thread about the need for the return of ''Classic Superman''...which of course, naturally begs the question what does one mean by ''Classic Superman''?

I'm not talking about your favorite take on Superman or even which one you think is 'objectively' (is there such a thing when it comes to pop-culture?) great. I'm talking about what is your idea of a ''classic'' Superman? It may not even necessarily be one particular version, but a blend of different versions and ideas.

To me, the ''classic Superman'' is the Superman of the 70's and 80's - the Bronze Age and the early Post-COIE era. Something like this:



Or this...



I'm a child of the 90's and when I first discovered Superman, in the early 00's, through watching reruns of STAS, it was this broad 70's/80's era which felt ''classic'' to me. It did inspire STAS in no small measure. And later, when I watched the Donner movie, and its sequels, I broadly felt the same ''classic'' sensibility. A lot of the adaptations since then that I feel have starred a ''classic'' take on Superman and his world have been derived from some blend of Post-COIE and Donner - Lois & Clark, CWs Supergirl and now Superman & Lois.

Now mind you, these aren't necessarily my favorite takes on Superman. MOS remains my personal favorite Superman live-action movie (though even that film borrows heavily from the Post-COIE era and the Donner movie - albeit with a darker, or I would say more 'realist' tone). I love Morrison's Golden Age-inspired New 52 Superman. I've come to develop a deep appreciation for the original Siegal/Shuster Superman as well. American Alien might be one of my favorite reinventions of Superman. But to me, my baseline understanding of Superman, what feels like ''classic'' Superman to be, is a vague blend of the Bronze Age (mostly by way of Donner) and early Post-COIE. Everything else feels like a progression of that (S&L or any other post-marriage status quo), an intentional subversion or alternative to that (New 52, the Snyderverse to an extent), or a pre-cursor to that (the Golden Age and Silver Age).

I must make a note here of the Fleischer cartoons. Those these far predate the ''classic Superman'' I have in my mind, sometimes they do blend in with my vision of what's classic. Possibly because these cartoons did heavily influence STAS and the rest of the DCAU I grew up with. I guess after the Donner movie, it might be the adaptation that has endured the most through pop-cultural osmosis. It might be the earliest version of Superman that could be widely considered a ''classic''. So it rates an honorary mention for sure...

Donner's Superman endured mostly because Superman has always lacked a strong theatrical presence. The last Superman film was in 1951. Clark has always had a stronger presence on television, which is better suited for Superman (in my opinion).

As for what I consider "classical". I see it this way: it depends on the Superman you grew up with. I too watched the re-runs of STAS and watched Supes on the Justice League/Unlimited cartoons. However, I'm so far removed from that anytime I see DC Comics use that JL line-up, I don't care about it (I'd rather see the original Leaguers than any other line-up). I love my childhood, but I leave my childhood back there. So STAS/JL/U isn't my "classical" Superman. I don't have one.

Millennials (1980s), probably remember Lois and Clark (who are readers of post-crisis). For older folks, Dooner/Reeves/and Super Friends. For even older folks, George Reeves is their Superman. The children of WWII, most likely read Siegel and listened to the radio serial. Then we have the silver age fans of the 1960s, who are most likely fans of the bronze age Superman, too.

The look of the Fleischer cartoons has endured to an extent (it inspired STAS for starters) - the red-S-on-black-triangle look, while not has iconic as the red-S-on-yellow-triangle, has found resonance over the decades in Superman Smashes the Klan, the early 2000's comics, Kingdom Come and even in flashbacks in S&L. And of course, the Fleischer cartoons introduced Superman's ability to fly, which is as ''classic'' and ''archetypal'' as it gets. So the Fleischer cartoons has some claim to classic status.

The Silver Age introduced TONS of stuff, but I'd argue that its the use of those concepts in the Donner movies or Post-COIE that have really refined those concepts into the form most people are familiar with these days - the crystal Fortress being a prime example, the depiction of General Zod (and Ursa and Non) being another.

Byrne introduced a lot of stuff that I'd argue has become ''classic'' over the last 36 years - the Kents being alive and Clark returning to meet them in Smallville, businessman Lex, Clark Kent being the real identity (or at least as real as Superman or Kal-El) etc.

I dunno about the marriage - Lois & Clark was the first big adaptation to have it (simultaneous with the comics) and it was almost 30 years ago, but is it part of the ''classic'' Superman? It has started popping up in adaptations a lot more frequently and was even brought back in the comics. Time will tell, since the definition of what's ''classic'' is not static but evolves over time. I see the marriage as an evolution of the classic status quo and I see it potentially becoming a ''classic'' element over time. Anyway, the idea that Superman is destined to marry Lois isn't one that originated in the 90's...I think it's something that's always been on the cards, implicitly or explicitly (except perhaps in Silver Age comics that gave Lana equal status as a love interest).

Now, if we talk about stuff that to my mind hasn't become ''classic'' (and mark my words, this is highly subjective) - well the birthing matrix is obviously one of them. I hate to say it, but Superboy (as in Clark as Superboy) doesn't seem to be particularly ''classic'' either - it's never been fully restored to the comics after COIE and adaptations like Smallville (and various other stories in comics and other media) have presented more enduring narratives about what Clark was doing before he became Superman. Superman and Wonder Woman being an item isn't likely to ever become ''classic'' either. Clark as a TV reporter at WGBS is also something that hasn't stood the test of time at all.

Imma probably get a lot of mean comments, but Superman and Wonder Woman is "classical"; the concept has reached outside of DC Comics (minus Astroy City of course). Say what you want, but the folks over at the appreciation thread keep it going year after year. It's just not as famous as Superman and Lois.

Now, as for the idea of Superman and Lois being destined, that's a bit far-fetched. Whoever claimed that is stupid. They toyed with Superman and Lois marrying for years during the silver age. I read one story where Superman goes to the future and meets Lois Lane's descendant who has powers similar to his own. At first, Supes thought it was him, but he was wrong. The ending very much hinted, strongly I say, at Clark and Lois. Clark and Lois did marry in 1949.

[The Frog Bros]

Donner's Superman endured mostly because Superman has always lacked a strong theatrical presence. The last Superman film was in 1951. Clark has always had a stronger presence on television, which is better suited for Superman (in my opinion).

As for what I consider "classical". I see it this way: it depends on the Superman you grew up with. I too watched the re-runs of STAS and watched Supes on the Justice League/Unlimited cartoons. However, I'm so far removed from that anytime I see DC Comics use that JL line-up, I don't care about it (I'd rather see the original Leaguers than any other line-up). I love my childhood, but I leave my childhood back there. So STAS/JL/U isn't my "classical" Superman. I don't have one.

Millennials (1980s), probably remember Lois and Clark (who are readers of post-crisis). For older folks, Dooner/Reeves/and Super Friends. For even older folks, George Reeves is their Superman. The children of WWII, most likely read Siegel and listened to the radio serial. Then we have the silver age fans of the 1960s, who are most likely fans of the bronze age Superman, too.

Yeah I think its a sliding scale to a degree and depends on who's answering the question. From a comic standpoint my early heyday in comics was the early 90s so that period immediately comes to mind for me.

I also think that most people's idea of a "classic" Superman contains elements of Silver Age, Donner, and some Bryne. Further, I think who you are asking is a variable based on their exposure to the character. Is it a die hard comics person, a casual fan, or someone who's only seen a few things on the small and/or big screen? This would certainly be reflected in their opinion.

But yeah, at the end of the day, I'd think, SA and Donner would be most prevalent. Oh, and mos def the John Williams theme.

[bat39]

Donner's Superman endured mostly because Superman has always lacked a strong theatrical presence. The last Superman film was in 1951. Clark has always had a stronger presence on television, which is better suited for Superman (in my opinion).

As for what I consider "classical". I see it this way: it depends on the Superman you grew up with. I too watched the re-runs of STAS and watched Supes on the Justice League/Unlimited cartoons. However, I'm so far removed from that anytime I see DC Comics use that JL line-up, I don't care about it (I'd rather see the original Leaguers than any other line-up). I love my childhood, but I leave my childhood back there. So STAS/JL/U isn't my "classical" Superman. I don't have one.

Millennials (1980s), probably remember Lois and Clark (who are readers of post-crisis). For older folks, Dooner/Reeves/and Super Friends. For even older folks, George Reeves is their Superman. The children of WWII, most likely read Siegel and listened to the radio serial. Then we have the silver age fans of the 1960s, who are most likely fans of the bronze age Superman, too.

It is an answer that probably changes across age groups. But I don't believe in the simple equation that ''classic'' Superman = Superman you grew up with. The Superman you grew up with likely influences what you consider ''classic'' Superman but, at least speaking for myself, ''classic'' is a term I ascribe to something that was generally before my time, whatever that time was. So for instance, I regard Donner as classic even though that movie was out long before I was born. I regard Byrne's reboot as classic, even though that came out before I was born as well, though it did influence a lot of the Superman media and comics I was exposed to growing up.

Imma probably get a lot of mean comments, but Superman and Wonder Woman is "classical"; the concept has reached outside of DC Comics (minus Astroy City of course). Say what you want, but the folks over at the appreciation thread keep it going year after year. It's just not as famous as Superman and Lois.

Now, as for the idea of Superman and Lois being destined, that's a bit far-fetched. Whoever claimed that is stupid. They toyed with Superman and Lois marrying for years during the silver age. I read one story where Superman goes to the future and meets Lois Lane's descendant who has powers similar to his own. At first, Supes thought it was him, but he was wrong. The ending very much hinted, strongly I say, at Clark and Lois. Clark and Lois did marry in 1949.

I don't think Superman and Wonder Woman is ''classic'' by any stretch. Frankly, apart from their brief relationship in the New 52 (and I suppose DKSA and maybe some other Elseworlds too), its an idea that exists more outside the narratives themselves than within them. Its something people talk about online but not something that has a lot backing it up in the 80-plus years of both character's existence.

When I say that Superman and Lois are 'destined' I don't mean in an in-universe sense (the way the Hawks are destined). But Lois is the very archetype of a superhero love interest, and the Superman-Lois relationship is probably one of (if not the) most iconic relationships in all of pop-culture...so it's far from stupid to make that assertion. Them getting married is a logical progression of the classic status quo that began all the way back in Action Comics # 1, even if Siegal and Shuster themselves never actually intended to progress the relationship to that point.

[DochaDocha]

The "classic" Superman and Wonder Woman relationship would probably be the occasional what-if? tease you see once in a while, but with no real weight to it. A substantive romantic relationship between them wouldn't be classic. On the other hand, I think as of today the secondary relationship for both characters would be with one another. It doesn't come anywhere close to touching Superman-Lois, and now that Trevor is back after 25 years of irrelevance it's a back to being a distant second from WW-Steve. But in modern times, it might've supplanted Superman-Lana.

I'd also agree that Superman and Lois are "destined" in that Lois was literally created to be his romantic counterpart and has been used accordingly throughout the most part of their existences.

[JBatmanFan05]

I must make a note here of the Fleischer cartoons. Those these far predate the ''classic Superman'' I have in my mind, sometimes they do blend in with my vision of what's classic. Possibly because these cartoons did heavily influence STAS and the rest of the DCAU that I grew up with. I guess after the Donner movie, it might be the adaptation that has endured the most through pop-cultural osmosis. It might be the earliest version of Superman that could be widely considered a ''classic''. So it rates an honorary mention for sure...

Whatever my version of "Classic Superman" is, it definitely encompasses the Fleischer/Famous Superman. So you were wise to mention it.

My my version of "Classic Superman" is definitely some amalgam of (mostly) Fleischer/Famous Superman and Silver Age Superman and Donner's Superman and Bronze Age Superman and Adventures of Superman (1952–1958) and Kirk Alyn Superman (and etc).

Long ago, I might have included Byrne Superman, but I've come to feel he "Marvelized" Superman too much and so I'm now reluctant to include his version (though there is a lot I love from that era). The murder of the Phantom Zoners is one of a number of chief instances of my Marvelized Superman criticism I have for Byrne.