Do people like the *concept* of Superman more than they do the actual character of Superman?

[Buried Alien]

Superman has been a part of popular culture for nearly eighty years, and his shadow looms large over the pop culture landscape. He remains the archetypal superhero, as marketable as he ever has been, and an enduring pop culture icon.

But given all the squabbling among both writers/artists and fans in recent years over how the character should be depicted in comic books and movies, do you think it's accurate to say that people like the *concept* of Superman more than they do the actual character?

Buried Alien (The Fastest Post Alive!)

[mathew101281]

Both Superman and WonderWoman both struggle with this issue they are characters but they are also symbols that tend to get meaning strapped to them. This is also compounded by the fact that their have been many different versions of Superman over the years.

[Francisco]

The problem with Superman is that he's not allowed to be Superman. They want to make him relatable instead of making him interesting.

[Lightning Rider]

In terms of the masses, yes. They may like what he represents, but if you present him at his purest, they call him boring and impossible to relate to; if you show him in a context of strife or self-reflection, they say he was tarnished and ruined.

He's an easy symbol of heroism and morality people can project onto. Making him a living, breathing character with personality traits gets in the way of that. Conflict is at the heart of every story, and if Superman's conflict are too basic, they're boring. If they're too personal, it makes him imperfect.

I see no reason why they can't be combined though. Make him the guy who wrestles with lions for fun and casually benchpresses the planet's weight, also make him the guy who sometimes feels like a failure and gets red-filled eyes out of anger. They don't have to be different people. And ideally they aren't. If he never doubts himself, he has nothing to overcome. Hope springs from desperation. That's as much true internally as it is externally.

[Jon Clark]

For me it just might be that I like some of the concepts more than others so depending on what is emphasized my interest in Superman fluctuates.

I think the problem is that every reader differs on what is concept vs what is character.

Is Superman supposed to be a regular joe except with the powers to resolve everyday problems? If so is that a concept or the background of a person raised as a regular guy who discovers he has powers?

Is Superman someone who has experiences no one else does? Again if that is so where is the line between the concept of "fish out of water" or "stranger in a strange land" and how someone might develop if his reality included senses no one else had or adventures outside normal experience?

Is the character of Superman supposed to be someone with strong morals or someone more like the Plutonian or Liefeld's Supreme where the actions follow baser (but not necessarily immoral) motives? Is a character with strong morals just a concept and any attempt to depict it a one-dimensional caricature ratherthan a character?

[Myskin]

Moralofhtestory land, educational town and Rolemodel city are the places where good comics go to die.

[MajorHoy]

. . . But given all the squabbling among both writers/artists and fans in recent years over how the character should be depicted in comic books and movies, do you think it's accurate to say that people like the *concept* of Superman more than they do the actual character?

I don't think it's "concept" vs. "character" as much as it is differences of interpretations.

Hard to say that people don't like "the character" if it's a more a question about whether they like the current interpretation. And since those interpretations will change over and over again, you get people who may not like the character as he's presented now, but they may be happier in the future when the character's focus changes yet again.