Controversial Superman Opinions

[Yoda]

Secret identities are more or less out of style across the board for comics characters. Marvel more or less has given up on them with the exception of Spider-Man. Up until the recent reveal, Superman was one of the notable holdouts.

Similarly, the “civilian” side of most comic casts have atrophied completely, with the Daily Planet staff again being the notable holdouts on the DC side, and maybe Spider-Man again on the Marvel. So really, Superman was up until recently the exception to the rule. Not sure you can really “blame” anything on anyone for that happening here.

[DochaDocha]

I think to some extent the MCU sort of level-set what it means to be a superhero. They ditched Iron Man's secret ID, Hulk doesn't get individual movies, and only Captain America wears a mask though it's more combat tactical than anything else and he only wears it occasionally.

I hate to say it, but Superman may rely upon Batman to maintain his secret ID for creators to deem Superman's to be essential...

EDIT: Also, when I think of Superman in other media over the last however many decades, I would say by far the most interesting aspect of his keeping his ID secret was his interaction with Lois, so once she's in on the secret, it seems less compelling to tell stories about how Superman has to hide that he's Clark Kent and vice-versa.

[sunofdarkchild]

To me the problem with the Clark persona is that it has to fulfill some sort of need for Superman for it to make sense that it exists at all. Superman doesn't need food, rest, or shelter like humans. In theory he could be saving people 24-7 and not need a job. With his senses and especially in the modern world there's no need to be at a news building to learn about emergencies. When he needs to take a break he can go to the fortress. The other superheroes and the justice league can provide for any social needs he may have. Even his relationship with Lois would be simpler if he was just Superman because that's who Lois falls in love with first in almost all versions. Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter has to be more than a mask, it has to be who he is and who he wants to be on some level, because otherwise it is completely pointless and actually detrimental.

[Adekis]

I think the slow down playing of Clark Kent in favor of Superman was a natural result of the Byrne changes tbh. If you're just going to say that Clark Kent is just Superman in different clothes then there is no real need for much Clark Kent time.

Maybe, but they managed to keep CK and the Daily Planet crew a vital and active part of Superman's world for a good 15 years or so after that reboot. I think DC just needs to commit to them.

[sunofdarkchild]

Byrne made being Clark the most important part of his life. He wanted to have a normal life outside of flying around, saving people, and fighting bad guys. He wanted to have relationships where people didn't look at him as Superman all the time. He wanted to prove he was more than his powers and relished in his writing abilities since that was something he worked on and developed independently of his superpowers. He wanted Lois to fall in love with Clark to prove that she loved him for him and not for his powers or heroics. As a result Clark Kent and the Planet got more focus than ever and the human cast was the largest its ever been and likely will ever be. He had a reason to be Clark that went beyond the by then outdated for decades idea that he needed to be a reporter to learn about crisis quickly.

And it's inaccurate to say there was no difference between Clark and Superman. As Superman he had to hold himself to a certain standard that he didn't have to do as Clark. This more than anything is what the 'Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do' line means. Clark can act naturally, how he might truly want to act, in a way that Superman can't while trying to hold himself up as a perfect role model. As Clark he could tell jokes Superman would never tell. Clark can get into arguments with Lois or Perry that Superman wouldn't dare, or pull a harmless joke on a a friend that Superman is supposed to be above. Clark can get upset or angry at times when Superman can't without causing a panic. Clark can make mistakes, Superman has to be perfect. Clark is unencumbered by the weight of the expectations Superman faces, and can allow more of his real personality to show.

[marhawkman]

Secret identities are more or less out of style across the board for comics characters. Marvel more or less has given up on them with the exception of Spider-Man. Up until the recent reveal, Superman was one of the notable holdouts.

Similarly, the “civilian” side of most comic casts have atrophied completely, with the Daily Planet staff again being the notable holdouts on the DC side, and maybe Spider-Man again on the Marvel. So really, Superman was up until recently the exception to the rule. Not sure you can really “blame” anything on anyone for that happening here.

I think the problem is writers not having good ideas outside the spectacle of super-fights.

Part of why I personally liek Lex as a Superman foe is that Clark Kent can fight Lex... in a way... There's more to being Superman than fist fights with Darkseid and Doomsday.

[Agent Z]

To me the problem with the Clark persona is that it has to fulfill some sort of need for Superman for it to make sense that it exists at all. Superman doesn't need food, rest, or shelter like humans. In theory he could be saving people 24-7 and not need a job. With his senses and especially in the modern world there's no need to be at a news building to learn about emergencies. When he needs to take a break he can go to the fortress. The other superheroes and the justice league can provide for any social needs he may have. Even his relationship with Lois would be simpler if he was just Superman because that's who Lois falls in love with first in almost all versions. Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter has to be more than a mask, it has to be who he is and who he wants to be on some level, because otherwise it is completely pointless and actually detrimental.

Superman's body might not need rest but his mind does. And I don't think it has ever been established he doesn't need to eat.

[Baron of Faltine]

Byrne made being Clark the most important part of his life. He wanted to have a normal life outside of flying around, saving people, and fighting bad guys. He wanted to have relationships where people didn't look at him as Superman all the time. He wanted to prove he was more than his powers and relished in his writing abilities since that was something he worked on and developed independently of his superpowers. He wanted Lois to fall in love with Clark to prove that she loved him for him and not for his powers or heroics. As a result Clark Kent and the Planet got more focus than ever and the human cast was the largest its ever been and likely will ever be. He had a reason to be Clark that went beyond the by then outdated for decades idea that he needed to be a reporter to learn about crisis quickly.

And it's inaccurate to say there was no difference between Clark and Superman. As Superman he had to hold himself to a certain standard that he didn't have to do as Clark. This more than anything is what the 'Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do' line means. Clark can act naturally, how he might truly want to act, in a way that Superman can't while trying to hold himself up as a perfect role model. As Clark he could tell jokes Superman would never tell. Clark can get into arguments with Lois or Perry that Superman wouldn't dare, or pull a harmless joke on a a friend that Superman is supposed to be above. Clark can get upset or angry at times when Superman can't without causing a panic. Clark can make mistakes, Superman has to be perfect. Clark is unencumbered by the weight of the expectations Superman faces, and can allow more of his real personality to show.

I kind of love the idea that Superman is the "job" face he wear but he crave coming back to Clark so he can enjoy some mundane pleasure like saying very very dirty stupid jokes.

[NaVi]

the problem with secret identities is that the writers see it as a means to reach the real character the SUPERHERO.
In the case of Superman it is very simple to make Clark an interesting and meaningful character in the story. Superman is the hero who fights against great threats, the hero who fights in the light, he is hope.
Clark is the hero who fights against threats at street level, he does it from the dark, nobody knows he exists, and he already has his great enemy Lex.
I do not know if someone else would like it, but I would not hesitate to compare a comic of Lois and Clark as journalists, showing the more human but also darker side of Metropolis.

[Betinayen]

the problem with secret identities is that the writers see it as a means to reach the real character the SUPERHERO.
In the case of Superman it is very simple to make Clark an interesting and meaningful character in the story. Superman is the hero who fights against great threats, the hero who fights in the light, he is hope.
Clark is the hero who fights against threats at street level, he does it from the dark, nobody knows he exists, and he already has his great enemy Lex.
I do not know if someone else would like it, but I would not hesitate to compare a comic of Lois and Clark as journalists, showing the more human but also darker side of Metropolis.

I would love it, I mean I would love to see the more detective and journalist side of Clark and Lois, and I think a story like that has a lot to offer

[Tzigone]

Secret identities are more or less out of style across the board for comics characters. Marvel more or less has given up on them with the exception of Spider-Man. Up until the recent reveal, Superman was one of the notable holdouts.

Similarly, the “civilian” side of most comic casts have atrophied completely, with the Daily Planet staff again being the notable holdouts on the DC side, and maybe Spider-Man again on the Marvel. So really, Superman was up until recently the exception to the rule. Not sure you can really “blame” anything on anyone for that happening here.

I agree with the assessment, but I don't like the change. I feel like superheroes have grown more and more divorced from the world. Like gods who protect normal human society from the outside, instead of members of the said society, just doing what they can (which is, of course, a hell of a lot).

As for meek CK - I don't like him super meek and pathetic. Also, frankly, he really never was that consistently in the golden age, IMO. He'd have moments when he put on that act, but other times wasn't that way at all and was out pursing stories and would be forceful and such. And he didn't do the naive farmboy thing, which I'm on record as not liking at all (especially when it morphs into "smalltown values are morally surperior").

[Adekis]

I think I blame the farmboy thing pretty solidly on Dick Donner. Not totally sure if Smallville is explicitly from Kansas in "The Movie" or not, but when John Byrne changed Smallville from a east* coast town into a Kansas town, and moved the Kents from town back out into the country, he was following Donner's path either way.

Between the farmboy thing that eventually grew out of that approach, and the equally hit-or-miss antiseptic Krypton, I kinda wish Superman the Movie had gone down very differently.



On a side note, I just recently learned that Mort Weisinger died the same year "Superman the Movie" came out. It's just a coincidence, but it's one of those coincidences that seems very fitting.

[Tzigone]

I think I blame the farmboy thing pretty solidly on Dick Donner. Not totally sure if Smallville is explicitly from Kansas in "The Movie" or not, but when John Byrne changed Smallville from a west coast town into a Kansas town, and moved the Kents from town back out into the country, he was following Donner's path either way.

Oh, definitely. I mean, Clark had grown up (mostly) in town for decades before the movie. And it wasn't even all that small a town, despite the name (certainly not small for the state of Kansas that, as you mention, it wasn't in). And the movie had him using "swell", particularly pointed out as old-fashioned, and jokes at naivete and so forth.

[llozymandias]

I think I blame the farmboy thing pretty solidly on Dick Donner. Not totally sure if Smallville is explicitly from Kansas in "The Movie" or not, but when John Byrne changed Smallville from a west coast town into a Kansas town, and moved the Kents from town back out into the country, he was following Donner's path either way.

Between the farmboy thing that eventually grew out of that approach, and the equally hit-or-miss antiseptic Krypton, I kinda wish Superman the Movie had gone down very differently.



On a side note, I just recently learned that Mort Weisinger died the same year "Superman the Movie" came out. It's just a coincidence, but it's one of those coincidences that seems very fitting.

Smallville was never a west coast town. It was in an east coast state.

[Jon Clark]

Smallville was never a west coast town. It was in an east coast state.

Yes, Pre-Crisis Metropolis was an east coast city with Gotham as a neighbor across a bridge. Smallville was a small town nearby so that Metropolis was "the big city". Clark was more a kid from the poorer suburbs than someone from "flyover country".