So, what SHOULD Clark Kent be like?

[Cypher]

LOL. I enjoy boxing, too, and would still be doing it if not for my torn labrum, but c'mon. Boxing has attracted its fair share of dirtbags. There aren't any popular sports that are inherently low class; it's the participants, coaches, managers, promoters, fans, etc. that make sports lousy. That being said, I would also prefer if Supes was a boxer than, say, a martial artist. The words "martial arts" in comic books tends to make me roll my eyes, because too often it's basically a super power.

While I am not a Byrne apologist, I would say to Byrne's credit he had Supes quit football in issue one. There's definitely a social class associated with star athletes, at pretty much any level from middle school to retirement, and I thought Byrne was trying to make a point that Jonathan instilled in Clark the importance in not seeking self-glory or easy fortunes. It's not as though Clark continued to show off his athletic prowess at Daily Planet company picnics; he was done at 17/18. I can still disagree with the idea to let Clark play ball all throughout high school, but having him do so did serve a narrative point.

Ok, ok you have a point. With modern boxers anyways, who all just use the same style and poke each other for points like grandmas. And a lot of the dirtbag promoters and refs.

Personally I'm a fan of 20-60s boxing the most. Tunney, Lois, Jersey Joe, Pep, etc. Now those, you cant say are not proper classy gentlemen. But when it does come down to the fights, its a one on one real man comes out on top with fists, at least youre always guaranteed that.

[Jim Kelly]

Clark would never have had problems if he just played goalie on Smallville's pond hockey team.

[DochaDocha]

Clark would never have had problems if he just played goalie on Smallville's pond hockey team.

Heh, is that like being the right fielder in little league baseball?

Maybe the next continuity will focus on Clark's struggle to act like a 50th percentile guy, someone who's so mediocre at everything. Gets B's, demonstrates median athletic ability, is not popular but not unpopular, etc.

[Jim Kelly]

I was joshing, but a goalie is a very important position on a hockey team. And often, like quarterbacks, they're highly intelligent--being able to read the whole play on the ice. Physical contact with the goalie is not allowed and, being in goal, there would be few situations where Clark would be in danger of causing injury to another player.

Since Kansas has very cold winters, I'm assuming that just like in Canada, the ponds and lakes freeze over and the children play hockey (or shinny).

Spending a lot of his childhood in Alberta (his family emigrated to Canada from Britain, when he was eight), I'm sure hockey was something more familiar to John Byrne than American football. But I think he was overcompensating for his lack of American experience by giving Clark a pasttime that seemed all-American in his mind. I would have preferred that Byrne drew on his own British and Canadian roots--I think the result would have been more authentic. Like with some of his other jock heroes--Byrne's Clark comes off as a bit two-dimensional. I would have rather he put more of himself into the character to lend some verisimilitude to the stories.

[DochaDocha]

That would be funny if young Clark wasn't careful enough while tending the goal that he shattered the ice making a kick save.

[L.R Johansson]

In hindsight I can see how the poll might be a bit too limited or leading, but it was more or less my own attempt at comedy, flawed as it was. I'll try and leave that out of the next poll I do, and keep it more straight-forward. = )

Anyways, it's interesting how the discussion is going... the balance of traits needed in order to maintain a balanced Clark Kent is a tricky thing: too much cool and the disguise stops working, too much nerd and he ends up not being interesting for the reader, or simply cringe-worthy.

It's interesting how the John Byrne Clark is still the version in the lead tho'... I like the Byrne run, but some of the things he introduced just wasn't plausible. I take it a LOT of the fans here probably started reading Superman around that time then? Post-Crisis, 1986-1987.

A very interesting note, is how the SECOND biggest column, is Golden Age Clark - seems like a lot of people, like me, have a lot of love for the classic Earth-2 hands-on Superman, with the original Siegel/Shuster comics and Fleischer cartoons leading the fray.

A big apology that I didn't add New-52 Clark into the mix either... I guess he was so new, that I didn't even think about how different he is from the Pre-Flashpoint Clark Kent.

This gets me thinking tho'... is there some similarity between the golden age Clark, the Byrne and the New-52 Clark Kent? They do all seem awfully popular, so perhaps the key towards finding the perfect Clark is to GO BACK to the core - back to the original Superman-stories?

It certainly worked for the SUPERMAN-persona - Grant Morrison's Action Comics revitalized Superman a great deal, by making him a cocky brawler with STRONG opinions, instead of the somewhat washed-out character he had become since those first two years of Superman-stories.

It certainly was something that worked for Batman - Miller going back to the DARK Knight aspect, revitalized the character immensely, and is the take that has dominated most Batman-media since then.

Perhaps... that is true for Clark Kent, and SUPERMAN as well...?

WHAT SAY YOU?

[Ascended]

WHAT SAY YOU?

I think going back to the Golden Age mentality (or something along those lines) would be extremely popular.

Since the 52 began, the most popular and highest selling run was Morrison's opening arc, the t-shirt and jeans Superman. And that was pure Golden Age stuff. Actually, that was the high point for the character for the last twenty years or so, from a sales perspective.

Now its true that sales atrophy is a thing and Morrison's work always starts better than it ends anyway. But a lot of people responded very positively to a Superman who was going out and doing the sort of stuff many of us would like to do; threatening corrupt CEO's and politicians....there's no trust in big business or the government, (A CNN poll last year showed that head lice was more popular than Congress) and Superman doing to them what we ourselves cannot is the cornerstone of the character's original popularity.

As for Clark in particular, I think Bryne introduced a lot of personality to Clark and made him more than the cardboard secret identity he had often been treated as beforehand. I think in the long run Bryne went down the wrong path, but he made Clark interesting as a character, and not just as a foil for Superman. And as I said above, the Golden Age/52 Clark is giving voice to our own dissent with our elected leaders and their business partners, he's standing up and doing what he can to make the world a better place, and it hits home on a deeper level than Superman fighting an alien invasion or other equally imaginary threat.

I think if DC took such a route with the character, (with a proper amount of media saturation so people actually know its happening) they'd see a marked improvement in sales. Granted a lot of established fans want to keep Superman as far away from real world issues as possible, but the potential gain likely outweighs the potential loss.

[Nostradamus]

God, not the Byrne version. A mix of bumbling, fumbling, Reeve version with the the passion of the Birthright version and little bit of Dean Cain (because his Clark was adorable).

I was always a fan of the 'Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do' version but lately, I prefer Superman to be the real personality and Clark to be the mask (yet, not completely). Basically Superman and Clark Kent should be enigmas.

[Ascended]

God, not the Byrne version. A mix of bumbling, fumbling, Reeve version with the the passion of the Birthright version and little bit of Dean Cain (because his Clark was adorable).

I was always a fan of the 'Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do' version but lately, I prefer Superman to be the real personality and Clark to be the mask (yet, not completely). Basically Superman and Clark Kent should be enigmas.

Ive always considered both Superman and Clark to be, to various degrees, both "fake" As Superman, he has to play up his confidence and charisma; he has to be the symbol people need him to be but he's really not as self-assured as he has to act. As Clark, he plays up his nerdy personality traits beyond what they "really" are.

In my mind, there's Superman, there's Metropolis Clark, and they're both just different personality aspects taken to a new height and other aspects played down alot. And then somewhere in the middle is the "real" personality, who almost no one ever gets to see.

[L.R Johansson]

Ive always considered both Superman and Clark to be, to various degrees, both "fake" As Superman, he has to play up his confidence and charisma; he has to be the symbol people need him to be but he's really not as self-assured as he has to act. As Clark, he plays up his nerdy personality traits beyond what they "really" are.

In my mind, there's Superman, there's Metropolis Clark, and they're both just different personality aspects taken to a new height and other aspects played down alot. And then somewhere in the middle is the "real" personality, who almost no one ever gets to see.

EXACTLY!! That's precisely what I think as well. = ) Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Byrnes Clark is just not original enough for me. It reminds me of a Marvel Character, Peter Parker mixed with Steve Rogers post super soldier serum. And his Superman is strangely less confident than Clark. Golden Age Superman was always the Alpha Dog in the room. The most invulnerable Superman pre Kryptonite. He let Clark be timid, even cowardly. It was an act but that was the public Clark Kent. The true Clark Kent is really Superman.

[Jim Kelly]

It's interesting how the John Byrne Clark is still the version in the lead tho'... I like the Byrne run, but some of the things he introduced just wasn't plausible. I take it a LOT of the fans here probably started reading Superman around that time then? Post-Crisis, 1986-1987.

I think Byrne is polarizing. Those who like his work will vote for him. But those who don't will vote for one of the many alternatives. He's like Stephen Harper in that way.

[Jon Clark]

Ive always considered both Superman and Clark to be, to various degrees, both "fake" As Superman, he has to play up his confidence and charisma; he has to be the symbol people need him to be but he's really not as self-assured as he has to act. As Clark, he plays up his nerdy personality traits beyond what they "really" are.

In my mind, there's Superman, there's Metropolis Clark, and they're both just different personality aspects taken to a new height and other aspects played down alot. And then somewhere in the middle is the "real" personality, who almost no one ever gets to see.

I agree with the caveat that we, the readers, get to see Superman as the "real" personality more often than not. Superman as seen by the average person on the street in the DCU is not the same as the Superman we see. Even people like Jimmy Olsen or much of the non-JLA hero community see a Superman who is making a real effort to be an ideal. Diana (currently) or Lois (Pre-52) might see Superman afraid, exhausted, angry, etc; but around all but a few people Superman is projecting an image of a guy who is always in control and effortlessly dedicated to his job.

[Blacksun]

In hindsight I can see how the poll might be a bit too limited or leading, but it was more or less my own attempt at comedy, flawed as it was. I'll try and leave that out of the next poll I do, and keep it more straight-forward. = )

Anyways, it's interesting how the discussion is going... the balance of traits needed in order to maintain a balanced Clark Kent is a tricky thing: too much cool and the disguise stops working, too much nerd and he ends up not being interesting for the reader, or simply cringe-worthy.

It's interesting how the John Byrne Clark is still the version in the lead tho'... I like the Byrne run, but some of the things he introduced just wasn't plausible. I take it a LOT of the fans here probably started reading Superman around that time then? Post-Crisis, 1986-1987.

A very interesting note, is how the SECOND biggest column, is Golden Age Clark - seems like a lot of people, like me, have a lot of love for the classic Earth-2 hands-on Superman, with the original Siegel/Shuster comics and Fleischer cartoons leading the fray.

A big apology that I didn't add New-52 Clark into the mix either... I guess he was so new, that I didn't even think about how different he is from the Pre-Flashpoint Clark Kent.

This gets me thinking tho'... is there some similarity between the golden age Clark, the Byrne and the New-52 Clark Kent? They do all seem awfully popular, so perhaps the key towards finding the perfect Clark is to GO BACK to the core - back to the original Superman-stories?

It certainly worked for the SUPERMAN-persona - Grant Morrison's Action Comics revitalized Superman a great deal, by making him a cocky brawler with STRONG opinions, instead of the somewhat washed-out character he had become since those first two years of Superman-stories.

It certainly was something that worked for Batman - Miller going back to the DARK Knight aspect, revitalized the character immensely, and is the take that has dominated most Batman-media since then.

Perhaps... that is true for Clark Kent, and SUPERMAN as well...?

WHAT SAY YOU?

Frank Miller has the worst batman period.
nolan, snyder, batas are all different versions from what Miller did
I had a friend say that new 52 superman is not similar to Golden age. I don't think it is that similar, only for throwing people/things around. Morrison try to find answers on the past, he is not wrong at all. with batman worked because it was pieces collected throught Batman story. With Superman he just used a outdated approach to superman, his run on action was pretty forgetable to me. it's not like a see lot of buzz for morrison superman on internet too.

Smallville still the best, specially on the comic. that's how you do superman/clark for the actual readers.

[Ascended]

Frank Miller has the worst batman period.
nolan, snyder, batas are all different versions from what Miller did
I had a friend say that new 52 superman is not similar to Golden age. I don't think it is that similar, only for throwing people/things around. Morrison try to find answers on the past, he is not wrong at all. with batman worked because it was pieces collected throught Batman story. With Superman he just used a outdated approach to superman, his run on action was pretty forgetable to me. it's not like a see lot of buzz for morrison superman on internet too.

Smallville still the best, specially on the comic. that's how you do superman/clark for the actual readers.

Really? Please. Its one thing to dislike a writer's take on a character; that's all well and good. But Morrison is widely regarded as the best modern day Superman writer, despite being extremely polarizing, and that's reflected across a wide spectrum from his JLA to All-Star to DC 1 Million, to yes, even Action (which sold better under him than at any other point since Superman's death, I believe).

I happen to agree with those people, but even if I didnt that doesnt mean that Morrison isn't the go-to Superman author in the modern age. You dont see a lot of chatter about him on Superman because he left the book two years ago and has said that he has no intention of coming back to monthly comics or Superman for the foreseeable future.

Also, havent you said you have not read a lot of Superman stuff outside of the newer material? How much of the Golden Age work have you actually seen? Because you're factually wrong in that the only similarities were in the violence.