Controversial Superman Opinions

[Agent Z]

When SEINFELD started to gain a following in the early seasons, some people thought Jerry and Elaine had the ideal relationship. They were held up as the model for romantic couples. Of course, those people got it wrong. It was never going to work out between Jerry and Elaine--they each had such absurd idiosyncrasies, they couldn't be tied down to each other. Better they should pursue failed relationships with others for our entertainment.

The Man of Tomorrow has gone in the opposite direction. In the early days, Superman/Lois/Clark was a dysfunctional romance. It could never work out between them. Oh sure, there was that unpublished K-Metal story and a period in the comic strip, where Lois and Clark were married, but in the majority of comic books there was never any hope for them to get together and live happily ever after.

Most imaginary stories, dreams and hoaxes suggested that if they ever did wed for real it would be a disaster. The people making the comics knew that they got more mileage out of keeping the couple apart.

A call for comics to get serious in the 1970s made Lois Lane less crazy and Clark more romantic. With the Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder pairing, some thought it would be better if the couple could get together in the end. The public now saw Superman as a love story, where Clark Kent and Lois Lane are destined to be together.

I find that boring, for the most part.

It's not impossible to write good stories about married couples. I like Ralph Dibny and Sue Dearbon Dibny, Adam Strange and Alanna of Rann, Barry Allen and Iris West Allen, Katar Hol and Shayera Thal. But the writers never had to change those character to make them work as a married couple.

Making Superman into the love story of two soulmates finding each other changes the Last Son of Krypton's adventures. Too much of the absurd and the fantastic is taken away from both their personalities to make them fit together. I never got into the Man of Steel to read about Clark Kent and Lois Lane living together in romantic bliss.

This is pretty funny considering those stories from the 70s had to change Superman and Lois to work in the first place. Hell, the entire Silver Age era of Superman was a change in tone from the original stories.

[JAK]

Well I'm not exactly a "Superman first" guy. I'm a "Both equally" guy. I think both sides of his life need proper focus for the character to work at his best. So maybe my answer isn't what you're looking for. But I pretty much come down on the idea that "Clark/Superman" isn't a binary; it's a spectrum. Sometimes Clark's more "Superman" than anything, sometimes more "Clark," depending on where he's at in his life.

I figure, setting aside the specifics of any given version.....

When Clark first gets to Metropolis, he's "Clark" just enough to pull the disguise off. He shows up at work *most* of the time, but rarely, if ever, spends time with anyone outside the office. No real effort to make friends, no after-work drinks for Mr. Kent with the other desk jockeys. He's so quiet and awkward he doesn't get invited anyway, but he's too busy to notice that; right after arriving in the city and going public as Superman? For the first time ever, Clark is able to let that hidden, secret side of himself out and he revels in it. He's acting as Superman as much as he can without *completely* unraveling Clark's life.

Then he starts making friends. Jim, Lois, even Perry in a "workplace mentor" kind of way. And "Clark" starts to take some time back for himself. Starts hanging out with people again, opening himself up, getting to know his co-workers and the people of Metropolis. There's still a lot of walls that he keeps up to protect "Superman" but he's starting to find a balance in his new, internal dynamic. He and Lois start to get closer.

Maybe as he and Lois get more serious and his friendships with other people deepen, the "Superman" side starts getting a little less attention. Clark's going to dinner with Lois more, grabbing beers with Jim after work more, and saving cats in trees less. He's happy. Feeling guilty about taking so much personal time and it's eating at him, but selfishly happy. Then he tells Lois who he is. And she gets it. She understands his need for that duality, and she doesn't hold one side against the other. Maybe she's the first/only girl to do so. And that helps Clark find the balance within himself again and put "Superman" back to work full-time, and her help at the Planet allows "Clark" to reach his potential as a journalist.

And if you squint, this kinda-sorta follows the rough path of the publication history. In a very generalized, vague way. "Clark" is in large part a disguise through the Golden Age and up into the Silver. Then when the Lois romance starts to be treated more seriously (getting into late Silver, Bronze Age and post-Crisis) "Clark" gets more consideration and time and "Superman" starts staying on earth more.

Now with his identity open and a kid to worry about, that inner dynamic has to shift again. Clark has to ask himself, without the need to keep half his life hidden, how does he move through the world? How do his two sides interact, without that need for secrecy? I think Bendis did a good job of taking Clark public in a way that felt honest, and dealing with the fallout from the people around him, and I think PKJ has done a great job with Clark's voice....but so far, nobody has really tackled the psychological impact of this latest change in his life.

I just want to say that, honestly, this could be an interesting take on a film. Very different, very low-key (and some would hate it), but I don't know. I dig it.

My question is would you read just a Clark Kent Lois book? Regular people living regular lives.

"Regular people"... I mean, sure. But neither Clark or Lois are regular, even without powers. So, yes. Honestly, though, I could have read 2 years worth of "Superman: Lois and Clark" books from Jurgens. That would have been fun.

To me it comes down to your view of the character as a whole.
Byrne's take starts with the main character slowly becoming aware of his abilities. Even in the Triangle years we had mentions of a broken arm as a child. I can see this guy growing up thinking of himself as Clark Kent and his powers just being an extra layer.

The version I grew up with was almost fully powered as soon as the rocket landed. He grew up always having to be less than his full potential around everyone but Jonathan and Martha. By age 8 he was already maintaining two lives. It makes sense that this guy thinks of Clark as a role more than his true self. Superboy/man only has to keep a few specific Clark details hidden. Clark has to hide his physical abilities, his normal reactions to danger, his most interesting experiences ...

I prefer the character to think of himself as more than a farmboy with some special abilities. VMMV

Most of that's a great comparison, and I agree - though I've never thought the "farmboy with powers" thing that started around "For All Seasons" really fit Clark or Superman in the Post-Crisis or Triangle Era. It got tossed around a lot, and I see the "charm" of the idea, but it was an odd thing to run with; Clark left Smallville for very strong reasons, and his powers (and the responsibility that he felt with them) were just one. No award-winning journalist and author is "just a farmboy," in their own head or anyone elses.

Ok, I'll try to find my way off the soapbox now, lol

[Stanlos]

My question is would you read just a Clark Kent Lois book? Regular people living regular lives.

I actually would, particularly if it showed the challenges to loving and keeping one's principles in an age where discipline, ethics, and morals seem very much out of fashion

[Stanlos]

But would I read a book with a detached Superman out in the Cosmos or, since he's linked to the Authority lately, the Bleed exploring Creation (all the verses, and new undiscovered structures and elements)?

I love science. But not a lot of people can do that well. And here again I note how similarly challenged the three OGs are albeit for different reasons.

So if someone comparable to Warren Ellis, Mark Waid, or a Grant Morrison (the good version) were helming and were supported by good art, I think I would follow it even if it made Superman feel less super.

[Johnny Thunders!]

I think there are tons of creators out there killing it with a post Grant Morrison All Star Superman approach. Al Ewing, Jonathan Hickman, Jason Aaron, even Tom King on Up in the Sky. I do like the drama of couples and relationships, that first Lori Lemaris story is heartbreaking and as a kid, it was one of the first love stories I got or cared about. But the twist of who she was was fantastic and fable like. For me, the Planet is not why I read Superman. I like big adventures where Superman brings a Smallville and Daily Planet sensibility to cosmic situations. When you put him next to Braniac or Galactus types, he wins because he is grounded. The more cosmic and crazy the adventure, the more grounded and practical Superman seems. I don’t feel detached, he’s how I would act if I went to New Genesis. I already know how I would be around my parents and loved ones. And apologies to the artists that actually bring the crazy alive and to the page!

[Ascended]

I just want to say that, honestly, this could be an interesting take on a film. Very different, very low-key (and some would hate it), but I don't know. I dig it.

Huh, I hadn't considered anything like that.

Seems a little low key for a movie. Maybe a HBOMax miniseries?

[JAK]

Huh, I hadn't considered anything like that.

Seems a little low key for a movie. Maybe a HBOMax miniseries?

Yeah, that would work pretty well, imo.

[phonogram12]

On the Clark Superman dichotomy, do those proponents of Superman first see him spending the vast majority of his time as Supes and little to no Clark? Like just enough to sell that Clark writes and such?

What I never liked about the whole Clark first thing pretty much sums up everything I didn't like about Byrne's revamp, the Lois & Clark show, and much of post-CRISIS up until the early 2000s. It just seemed so dismissive of his Kryptonian heritage, being a world (as Byrne put it) that "deserved to blow up."

[Jeffrey2]

I think that if they do another film it has to be magical, fresh and fun. Not a copy of Superman The Movie but writing that is serendipitous as it was in STM. To do that it needs to be a young Superman film. No kids, no living with Lois. The freedom of youth that leaves all possibilities open in a follow-up film. That can only be done via the magic of youth. Superman in his late 20s. No Luthor yet. Maybe a beefed up Toyman (think the late Gilbert Godfried's Knick Knack). A nuisance to Superman at first culminating in a climax where the weapons become more than a nuisance to Supes. The premise lends itself to a background element of simple fun having the audience grinning at times. Again, it should be a youthful Superman in a youthful world.

To this day when I watch STM I still smile at many scenes. The same when I catch a Superboy ep. I get that vibe from S&L - more so in the first season. When I watch MOS the only vibe I got was anger. When Iwatch SR the vibe was one of sadness. Neither film worked largely because of that. Another Superman film has to lift audiences up and get them looking up into the sky with hope. In that context a more "fun" villain like Toyman fits the bill.

[Jon Clark]

On the Clark Superman dichotomy, do those proponents of Superman first see him spending the vast majority of his time as Supes and little to no Clark? Like just enough to sell that Clark writes and such?

My concept is that Superman spends most of his time as Clark (at least before marriage). He put in roughly the same workday as any other reporter, with the exception of any jobs requiring immediate action by Superman. And he went home to Clark's apartment between patrols for a few hours. He had social contacts as Clark like Jimmy, Lois and Lana who he might go out to dinner with after work.

Since he doesn't sleep more than a few hours a month, much of his private time as Superman would be at night. A few hours at the Fortress between midnight and the time Clark would leave for work. An occasional weekend exploring space or time if not on JLA duty or facing another major threat.

So depending on how needed Superman is he's Clark 40-60% of the time.

[Agent Z]

Another Superman film has to lift audiences up and get them looking up into the sky with hope.

Zack Snyder's DC films helped people overcome depressions and suicidal thoughts.

https://cinemacure.wordpress.com/201...-stories-here/

How Zack Snyder’s Superman Saved My Life.

https://***********/@AmandaKP/how-za...e-45ecfe806373

[manwhohaseverything]

Zack Snyder's DC films helped people overcome depressions and suicidal thoughts.

https://cinemacure.wordpress.com/201...-stories-here/

How Zack Snyder’s Superman Saved My Life.

https://***********/@AmandaKP/how-za...e-45ecfe806373

While i appreciate the positive personal anecdotes..if that superman worked..there would be numbers to back that up and the company itself would be rushing for sequals and stuff..what we got was batman and justice league..whatever kitchen sink they threw at the wall and superman(literally).

Zack snyder superman and his movies are done..People who like them can like them..People who don't won't.. it's just like mine or any others opinions about superman totally not gonna do anything.

[Agent Z]

While i appreciate the positive personal anecdotes..if that superman worked..there would be numbers to back that up and the company itself would be rushing for sequals and stuff..what we got was batman and justice league..whatever kitchen sink they threw at the wall and superman(literally).

Man of Steel got 668 million. It was far from a failure. Companies aren't exactly infallible when it comes to their choices. I'd think Superman fans of all people would understand that much.

Zack snyder superman and his movies are done..People who like them can like them..People who don't won't.. it's just like mine or any others opinions about superman totally not gonna do anything.

I'm not the one who brought it up. The people who hate those movies are as obsessed with them as the ones who defend them if not more so.

[kingaliencracker]

I can't buy Clark being a total facade or farce. That dynamic doesn't make sense to me. He spent most of his life as Clark Kent, not as Kal-El or Superman. Even in the Silver Age/Superboy history I can't buy that Clark is a disguise since he spent most of his young life being raised by the Kent's.

Clark has to be a real person with a real personality. Otherwise why bother?

[manwhohaseverything]

Man of Steel got 668 million. It was far from a failure. Companies aren't exactly infallible when it comes to their choices. I'd think Superman fans of all people would understand that much.



I'm not the one who brought it up. The people who hate those movies are as obsessed with them as the ones who defend them if not more so.

Me being a superman fan is iffy..i just like stories,characters,ips and stuff that entertain me.Usually in action adventure kinda settings i like characters with hats or something like spike spiegel, monkey d luffy/portgas d ace,zorro,..etc .That maybe right..but who knows and i don't think we will ever know since we need that second movie to come to know how it reviews and if it makes money(an upward graph would be what suits would be look for)...but,i can say is i would give 6.5 out of 10.

I don't think they are.. It's just that people are in the shadow of them..Just like they are in the shadow of donner movies or past version of the character.