Controversial Superman Opinions

[Prime]

I have disliked what they done to him since Superbro died.

[Shadowcat]

Let me guess, you prefer Wonder Woman

I do love Wonder Woman, but I don’t want them together. Wonder Woman is my absolute favorite comic character, but she paired up with Superman or Batman is a pretty lazy direction.

[Tzigone]

I'm cool with him having kids.

Me too. I'd just like him to actually raise those kids - no (good) point otherwise. Wait, we are talking about Clark, right?


I like non-buttmonkey Jimmy, who is not caught up in wacky hijinks (I liked the golden age radio version, and some bronze stuff where he's competent). I would like him to properly age along with other characters. He shouldn't be "the kid" forever if everyone else is aging (I could be okay with static ages and non-progression for all). And if he's in 30 years old, he shouldn't act 19. I'd be okay with a (non-cracky, healthy) marriage and kids for him. Not that everyone needs spouses or kids, though, so he's fine without. But if he's a grown up, he acts like one. He goes from rookie to established and respected professional, and doesn't stay a manchild, either, you know?

[Adekis]

I have disliked what they done to him since Superbro died.

Yeah, that's kind of my perennial hot take - I liked "Superbro" a lot more than "Super-Dad". Even where he fell short of his potential, it would have been a lot easier to get him back on the right track for my personal tastes than the current version.

[The World]

Siegel and Shuster ran circles around most of the Post-Crisis Superman writers.

[Johnny Thunders!]

Meek and Mild Mannered Clark Kent is a litmus’s test. If you treat that guy with respect, you are probably A-OK.

[Jon Clark]

Meek and Mild Mannered Clark Kent is a litmus’s test. If you treat that guy with respect, you are probably A-OK.

Kind of torn on this one.

Goes back to my oft stated problem that "Clark Kent" has become such a nebulous term. For some of us "Clark" is a person in his own right, for others "Clark" is just a term used to describe Superman when he is out of costume, and for still others "Clark" is a role played by Superman. So one man's "Clark Kent" is another man's "Kal-El"- terms to let two people talk in circles for hours in deadly opposition while in total agreement.

And "Meek and Mild mannered Clark" runs the gamut from a polite non-assertive guy to a walking hypochondriacal, klutzy, cowardly stock character.

So Byrne is either someone who gave Clark too much respect (football hero everyman) or not enough (made Superman and Clark the same guy). And the Early Siegel stories may have given Clark little respect (his first date with Lois and her subsequent opinion). But for me the closer you get to Clark as Siegel showed him in that first date the closer you are to understanding Superman's (and Clark's) classic appeal. The closer you are to the Byrne/Smallville ideal of Clark (not Superman) as being "a regular guy just with powers" the farther you are from getting the character.

[seismic-2]

"Meek and Mild Mannered" Clark Kent, the guy who slouches and tries not to attract attention, is a deliberate disguise. Clark Kent, the kind and generous yet assertive reporter who acts boldly to get a story and who is unafraid of being noticed, is Kal-El in street clothes. Lois would not be attracted to - and would hardly notice - the former, but she would find the latter to be quite appealing, even "heroic". The former Clark was necessary in the Silver Age when every other story was about someone's trying to discover Superman's secret identity. The latter Clark is the natural one for the post-Crisis era when no one knew that Superman even has a secret identity.

[Jon Clark]

"Meek and Mild Mannered" Clark Kent, the guy who slouches and tries not to attract attention, is a deliberate disguise. Clark Kent, the kind and generous yet assertive reporter who acts boldly to get a story and who is unafraid of being noticed, is Kal-El in street clothes. Lois would not be attracted to - and would hardly notice - the former, but she would find the latter to be quite appealing, even "heroic". The former Clark was necessary in the Silver Age when every other story was about someone's trying to discover Superman's secret identity. The latter Clark is the natural one for the post-Crisis era when no one knew that Superman even has a secret identity.

Except to me that is a different character than the one Siegel and Shuster created. There needs to be some distinction between Superman and Clark that is more than open use of his powers and what clothing he is wearing. The Silver Age took it a lot of times too far to one of the spectrum, but I think many modern authors have taken it too far the other way. The ability of the "Superman has no secret identity" to work requires Clark to be more than just Superman in street clothes doing mundane stuff.

[Adekis]

Nic Cage and Tim Burton seem to suggest in that "Death of Superman Lives" documentary, that "mild-mannered Clark" is the result of Kal feeling somewhat alienated and on guard as he hides his powers and navigates a society he doesn't really totally belong to. I like that interpretation a lot. I think Brandon Routh's Clark can be read similarly.

So in that interpretation there would naturally be a side to Clark that's a deliberate disguise and a side to him that's just Kal in civvies, and both converge into the Clark we know. That's probably my favorite idea of Clark Kent.

I definitely tend to agree that contemporary writers have occasionally taken it too far by making "Clark" literally just another name for Superman with no differences in role, compartment or anything else. I blame Frank Miller more than anyone else I think. That picture of Clark in DKR posing heroically with an eagle, combined with Bruce calling Superman in full costume "Clark" pointedly, just have to be a major influence.

[Ascended]

Except to me that is a different character than the one Siegel and Shuster created. There needs to be some distinction between Superman and Clark that is more than open use of his powers and what clothing he is wearing. The Silver Age took it a lot of times too far to one of the spectrum, but I think many modern authors have taken it too far the other way. The ability of the "Superman has no secret identity" to work requires Clark to be more than just Superman in street clothes doing mundane stuff.

Agreed.

I myself pull from Maggin in this. Clark and Superman are very different sides of the same coin, virtually two different people.

Not sure who said it, but someone once described the dichotomy as Clark being how the world sees us, and Superman is how we want to see ourselves. Clark is us on our worst, most mundane days; yelled at by the boss, late to work, the girl we like won't go on a date, etc. So Superman is how Clark finds victory. And Superman is us at our best, when we're really on our game and just bringing out the best of our humanity. So Clark is how the otherwise unbeatable Superman tastes defeat and normal, everyday loss.

If Superman and Clark are the same person in different clothes, then he just becomes a Marvel hero. And this isn't a market that currently rewards nuanced, deep dives into the psychological underpinnings of the human construct, but losing that rich division between "Clark" and "Superman" does the world at large a disservice. For the character to operate properly, there has to be a difference between the two halves of his life.

We do tend to get hung up on the terminology here though. I tend to break it down as "Metropolis Clark" who is largely an act built on a lot of half-truths (he *is* shy and introverted, but not as much as the mild mannered disguise makes it seem), "Superman" who is the hero the world knows and is also largely an act built on half-truths (he *is* confident and collected, but not as much as he pretends to be for the sake of others), and "Private Clark" which is the guy's actual personality. And very few people ever get to see Private Clark; if you get a glimpse of that guy, you're in the inner-inner circle of his life.

[TheKryptonMan]

"Meek and Mild Mannered" Clark Kent, the guy who slouches and tries not to attract attention, is a deliberate disguise. Clark Kent, the kind and generous yet assertive reporter who acts boldly to get a story and who is unafraid of being noticed, is Kal-El in street clothes. Lois would not be attracted to - and would hardly notice - the former, but she would find the latter to be quite appealing, even "heroic". The former Clark was necessary in the Silver Age when every other story was about someone's trying to discover Superman's secret identity. The latter Clark is the natural one for the post-Crisis era when no one knew that Superman even has a secret identity.

You make a good point . I personally like the assertive Clark that Byrne came up with. I do hope that eventually the secret identity is brought back. He's already got Lois, so no need for meek and mild mannered anymore.

[DochaDocha]

You make a good point . I personally like the assertive Clark that Byrne came up with. I do hope that eventually the secret identity is brought back. He's already got Lois, so no need for meek and mild mannered anymore.

One could also argue that now that he has his soul mate, there's no more penalty for acting like a mild-mannered guy in public. Lois already accepts him for who he is and knows all that meek stuff is an act. It's not like in Action Comics #1 when he let himself get pushed around by the bully and it ruined his date.

[manwhohaseverything]

To be perfectly blunt i am less interested in clark kent..Mild mannered guy is just there for laughs romance,(triangle) and pity party.Never found the character appealing.Especially if there isn't anything to laugh about,i find the guy annoying.I am more interested in the superman.Cause The Superman is the story.

As for clark kent/superman duality or the love triangle,it ain't original nor that complicated as people here seem to be under the impression it is.It's just a mask.That's it.This time the viglante ain't wearing it.The civilian is.hitting it home.which is real and which is not.

People may like that aspect want that guy as the lead.That's fair.i mean,spiderman exists because it scrated that itch.But,saying superman is uber complicated isn't genuine.

My opinion regardless of what,Writers treat superman like it's some bland everyday thing.There is no announcements.There is no magic.No spectacle.When they do hype up supes it's cringe worthy.."clark so good","superman is hope","superman is love and superman is life"..etc.Instead of a circus like feeling,who in the right mind would prefer a sermon.Thank god stan lee got the right idea.

#BringBackThenarrator.

"The man of action leaps into battle for truth and justice on behalf of the common folks"

[The World]

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.