Analyzing the Young Clarks

[godisawesome]

This idea spawned from the Earth One thread below it.

Since we all have some opinion formed on different depictions of Superman's genesis in the last few years, I thought it would be interesting to see what origin and take in a young Superman you prefer and what strengths and weaknesses you see in the other versions. How an author or creative team approaches Superman's beginning arguably defines how they view the character overall throughout their writing. I hope for this to be more calm and analytical than just tying to find what you believe is the best origin, but we'll see.

We've got Grant Morrison's New 52 version, the Byrne origin from the 80's, the Waid-created Birthright, Geoff Johns's Secret Origin, Earth One's take by JMS, the Donner origin, and Man Of Steel's as written by Goyer.

Now, I prefer the Man Of Steel's version of his origin a bit more than the others, in no small part because it feels like a perfected version of the Byrne origin, and because I like the very human interpretation of Clark. I'm a Post-Crisis guy, born 1990. So I applauded the decision to have most of the story blur the lines between Clark and Superman, something Earth One did as well. It gives us a more sincere character arc for Supes and allows us to focus on what makes him heroic. I also appreciate his altruistic nature and the endearing nature of the portrayal. But the clincher for me is the way that he chooses to step into the outside world while still helping people surreptitiously anyhow.

And around it, I love making Lois a major figure before the main conflict kicks in and emphasizing her investigative reporter abilities. This is the first Lois who's skills are in the forefront over everything else. It grafts her into the story in a nice way and side-steps all sorts of unfortunate developments that sometimes follow the classic triangle. I also approve of the battle sequences; I believe emphasizing the raw power of Superman and his people in comparison to humanity was important to highlight just how much of a change his existence brings about. I also do approve of the Zod fight itself. I believe Superman fought about as well as any version of himself could have to subdue the damage being dished out by the suicidal and destructive Zod (most of which was accomplished while Supes was a world away) and I even like the way the handled the death of Zod. Making it a messier ending has all sorts of nice implications for the character and it fit both characters at that point, as well as the precedent set by other Supermen: sometimes the villain is too powerful to subdue and Superman will have to make a tough choice.

Now, I do see significant areas where other origins handled the story better. Pa Kent dying of a heart attack is much better than the obviously-not-researched tornado scene from MOS, and adds an emotional element for the Donner version that is hard to beat. I also do appreciate the introspective nature from Earth One; I just think MoS handled it better. And I kind of love the social crusader aspect from Grant Morrison's version, I just wish there was a clear answer on how to tackle that issue as Superman matures.

So, what's your preferred origin and what strengths and weaknesses do you see?

[Adekis]

First, I'd like to say how much I like this thread idea. This is a topic I've spent a lot of thought on so I'm glad to see it on the forum. I know you said you hope this thread doesn't become just about which origin story you like best. I am going to be stating which origins I like and which ones I don't, but I hope to accomplish that task in a fully analytical manner.

One of my major barometers for dealing with a super-hero origin story is based on a quote from Batman Begins: "The training is nothing. The will is everything. The will to act." Given that most super-heroes do not have "training", but various forms of super-powers, I have seen fit to alter the quote slightly.
My barometer phrase is this: "The power is nothing. The will is everything. The will to act."

Bruce Wayne always has the will to act right under the surface. Sure, they played up in Batman Begins like he didn't know what to do with himself, but there was never any doubt that he would do something eventually. In every version of Batman, the character's core motive and modus operandi are always pretty much the same - rich kid's parents murdered by a criminal when he was young, he grows up and decides to end crime forever by dressing up like a giant bat and punching criminals in the face. Now, Batman's various origin re-tellings have lots of differences between each other, but they keep the same core because Batman's origin story is about why he's Batman with minimal attention devoted to how in that basic skeleton.

Kal-El is not like that. Sure, everyone knows the basic outline of Superman's origin story, right?

Doomed planet. Desperate Scientists. Last Hope. Kindly Couple.

But that's about as bare-bones as you can get, and it's all about how Kal-El gets to Earth. There's hardly any why. Sure, you can pretend that "Kindly Couple" is a reasonable excuse for a man to dress up in a red cape and devote his life to being the Champion of the Oppressed, but lots of people are raised by Kindly Couples, so I think we need to get a lot more specific than that to get a really good origin for Superman. All the best origins include something of the "why".

Why would he decide to put on a red cape and be the Champion of the Oppressed?

I'm going to skip the Golden Age for now because his reasoning is more or less because it just seemed like the right thing to do, the natural thing to do. Dress up in a red cape and fight crime and help those less fortunate than yourself. I'll come back to that later, but for now just know that his origin is very simple.

In the Silver and Bronze Age, it was because he was an idealistic eight year old who got his start as Superboy, and then got used to being the protector of a world that definitely needed him as he grew older. When you've been doing something since you were eight and no significant reason to stop doing it ever comes up, you're just going to go on being Superman. It's a perfectly serviceable reason for Kal to become Superman, but not a super-interesting one, because it lacks that Will to Act in an adult form. Not to say that Superman didn't have the will to act, it's just not as dynamic-seeming because it's the same totally viable and heroic will to act he's had since he was eight. Like Golden Age Superman, It's just the most natural thing in the world to Silver Age Superboy (and later Man) to dress up in a cape and help people, and there's something very likable and very cool about that, but it isn't as dynamic as it is seeing an adult make the same choice. I will admit though, it gave us one of the very best versions of the character. The Optimus Prime of Supermen! But I digress.

In Byrne's Man of Steel era, Kal-El was never part of the equation until years after he became Superman. Clark Kent was an itinerant worker and world traveler with super-powers whose cover got blown and decided it would be a good idea to go public with a nice bright costume so people would trust him. Again, serviceable, but I don't think it's that interesting. Sure, it has a Superman who does good deeds and helps people. That is wonderful. However, he doesn't go full on Superman doing Superman stuff until after he's already outed. His helping people on the down-low earlier does count as a sort of will to act, and so does his going public after he catches the Space Plane Constitution, but not the same way it would have if he decided to go public and become Superman without any prodding from outside events. Still, at least the call to go public is entirely his own decision, and led to another great version of the character.

In Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright, we actually have a pretty similar story to Man of Steel: Clark Kent is world-traveling journalist who helps people in trouble. However, this one has a different layer- every time his cover is blown, he moves somewhere else. This time, it's a specific individual, Kobe Asuru, who he doesn't save, who aspires him to go public and become more of an active presence. I prefer this to Man of Steel because we have a specific moment where he chooses to go public- not because everyone saw him and he realizes change is inevitable, but because he's put a lot of thought into his idea of going public to be more active. He is actively exercising the Will to Act in order to be more proactive in his helping people.

In my Least Favorite of All Superman Origins, JMS' Superman Earth One, Clark Kent has no passion for helping people. He considers working as a scientist, he considers working as a football star or a baseball star. He very briefly considers and then decides against working as a journalist. I'm not saying that Kal doesn't have a right to do what makes him happy, of course he does, it's just that what makes him happy should be being Superman and being a journalist. Journalism is the one thing that he considers doing that would actually challenge him, and because it challenges him, he dismisses it, rather than embracing it as most other versions of the character do for the same reason. When he does decide to become Superman, his motive is a strange mix of "because Mom said I should" and "holy crap this guy is going to blow up the planet if I don't stop him". Because of that last element, he never really gets a choice of whether or not to become Superman. In the whole book, he never shows an ounce of the will to act, or even a passion for helping others. Whole thing just bugs me left and right.

In Man of Steel the movie, Kal is doing the Byrne Man of Steel thing. Cool enough. He probably would have continued on that path. Unlike in Earth One, here we get a true sense that Kal is someone who cares about people and helping people. Sooner or later, he probably would have taken the Byrne path, which is why I'm not so annoyed that his reasoning for going public is "holy crap this guy is going to blow up the planet if I don't stop him". He did legitimately care about people in a pretty major way, and his decision to go public is all on him. He still didn't have the will to act despite being in a movie written by Christopher Nolan, who you'd think would understand a principle like the appeal of the proactive protagonist after such a smashing success as Batman Begins. Oh well. I love that movie anyway!

Lastly, there's the New 52 version of Superman whose origin was penned by Grant Morrison in Action Comics. This one is my favorite. My reasoning is that like Batman Begins is a world that shows why Bruce Wayne would decide to become Batman, Morrison's Action Comics run sets up a world to show why Clark Kent would decide to be Superman when he grows up. He does it very simply: there are multiple scenes of Jon Kent encouraging him to do Super-Pranks that fight against The Man, or even just against petty jerks. Jon Kent is clearly setting the example to his son that he should fight against those who treat people like dirt, and when he's all grown up, you can see that same sentiment pervading his decision to do something crazy like dress up in a red cape and fight fat-cat lawbreakers. He's got a real Green Arrow political edge to him that I appreciate immensely.

Lastly, I'd like to make a few callbacks to earlier origin stories to make my point about the New 52 story. In Birthright, I said Clark's decision feels like something he's been thinking about for a while and just figured out how to make work properly. In the Golden Age, he's a very young man whose parents just died and being a caped Champion of the Oppressed seems like the most natural thing in the world. In the New 52, I like it for the exact same reason. I like that in Birthright he put lots of thought into his decision to become Superman. I like that in the New 52, he doesn't have to. Thinking and experience don't even come into it. He's a hotheaded young man with the power to change the world, and he decides to just go out and do it. You can't get much more Will to Act than that!

I'm done talking about origin stories now for the moment. I hope that this thread continues with articulate and analytical discussion, and I hope I did a good job on that front myself. Good night!