Controversial Superman Opinions

[Stanlos]

I don't get that feeling. Just look at the conversations around the Dr. Strange, Black Panther or Thor sequels. A lot of that is about the directors. To say nothing of how much revolves around the actors playing these characters. Discussion about the talent behind these movies and shows goes hand in hand talk about the characters. That's been the case ever since I started participating in fandom.

People are always talking about how DC's characters are fading in popularity and their iconic status means nothing. It's been going on since the 90s at least. Personally, I think it's unjustified fear and there is little difference between discussions about the characters and the people writing or directing them. It's not like these characters write themselves.

But in the 90s wasn't DC like mostly the major leagues of movies, animation and television? I wonder why people thought the icons were fading during that time.

[Agent Z]

But in the 90s wasn't DC like mostly the major leagues of movies, animation and television? I wonder why people thought the icons were fading during that time.

Animation and tv I'll give you. But movies had Steel and the Schumacher Batman movies which were mixed in reception at best. Marvel had Blade, as well as the Spider-Man, X-Men and Hulk cartoons. Which weren't quite as revered as the DCAU, but it was something.

[kingaliencracker]

Which do you think leaves the greater impact? Steve Lombard talking down to Clark Kent or Batman talking down to Superman?

I may not be understanding the context of the question, so please forgive me if this isn't the answer you are seeking.

For me, Clark has to be a real identity. Not some weird, exaggerated loser. I love Christopher Reeve and those movies, and I understand that Reeve's interpretation of Clark holds a special place in many fans' hearts. I just found it unnecessary and deceptive. If Superman has to play human part-time (as the original movie Jor-El explained), then there should be real stakes to it. If the Reeve Clark was ever outed as Superman, what repercussions are there exactly? He doesn't work at the Daily Planet anymore? He has to be Superman full time? He wanted that anyway, according to the first movie. It just doesn't really make sense to me. Clark has to be real, and something Superman wants to be, as a way to keep himself normal. This means he would desire things that any normal person would - a job, enough income, a significant other, children, etc..

With that, if Steve Lombard was talking down to Clark, then I would expect Clark to react as a normal human being would react being talked down to by a peer or co-worker, with the added understanding of not outing himself as Superman or reacting in a manner that is counter as to what is generally accepted as Superman's core beliefs (although having said that, Superman II proved Reeve's Clark wasn't above getting back at someone who wronged him). But yes, I want Clark to have those interactions, to have a job, to have a family, to have a home in Smallville to go back to. And I want that to feel real - not in a way that feels unnatural or farcical.

Regarding Batman, however....that's a whole separate conversation, as I really don't view Batman to be on Superman's level (in terms of how I believe their interactions should be like). But obviously DKR and post-Crisis lore has substantially changed that dynamic in a way I don't like, but that is more of a problem with how DC handles Batman IMO.

[Jon Clark]

I may not be understanding the context of the question, so please forgive me if this isn't the answer you are seeking.

For me, Clark has to be a real identity. Not some weird, exaggerated loser. I love Christopher Reeve and those movies, and I understand that Reeve's interpretation of Clark holds a special place in many fans' hearts. I just found it unnecessary and deceptive. If Superman has to play human part-time (as the original movie Jor-El explained), then there should be real stakes to it. If the Reeve Clark was ever outed as Superman, what repercussions are there exactly? He doesn't work at the Daily Planet anymore? He has to be Superman full time? He wanted that anyway, according to the first movie. It just doesn't really make sense to me. Clark has to be real, and something Superman wants to be, as a way to keep himself normal. This means he would desire things that any normal person would - a job, enough income, a significant other, children, etc..

With that, if Steve Lombard was talking down to Clark, then I would expect Clark to react as a normal human being would react being talked down to by a peer or co-worker, with the added understanding of not outing himself as Superman or reacting in a manner that is counter as to what is generally accepted as Superman's core beliefs (although having said that, Superman II proved Reeve's Clark wasn't above getting back at someone who wronged him). But yes, I want Clark to have those interactions, to have a job, to have a family, to have a home in Smallville to go back to. And I want that to feel real - not in a way that feels unnatural or farcical.

Regarding Batman, however....that's a whole separate conversation, as I really don't view Batman to be on Superman's level (in terms of how I believe their interactions should be like). But obviously DKR and post-Crisis lore has substantially changed that dynamic in a way I don't like, but that is more of a problem with how DC handles Batman IMO.

I agree Clark's life has to have stakes, but that doesn't mean Clark himself has to be entirely real. I think the Reeve movies (including Routh in Superman Returns overdid the humor and bumbling. I don't see Clark as going overboard on making Clark different from Superman. But physically Clark would try to avoid any situation where his powers might be obvious. A fist fight where an opponent's punch might hit steel hard skin or fail to leave a bruise. Same with a contact sport or one where Clark might have to explain lack of injuries. This aspect of Clark is less a part of his reporting as he has less problem getting in the face of people as a reporter, though even there he would back off if he sensed the possibility of a physical altercation.

Clark's relationships with people are real even if his own actions aren't. Clark is actually closer to his Planet Colleagues than he is to his Justice League teammates. Barring a Superman situation arising, he'll spend more time at the Planet's Holiday party than at a League public appearance. He's more likely to have a beer with Steve Lombard or Ron Troupe than hang out with Aquaman or Hawkman. And while Superman is the true personality he has less close friends than Clark (with the caveat that people aware of the dual identity aren't counted as freinds of either for comparison).

[phonogram12]

I may not be understanding the context of the question, so please forgive me if this isn't the answer you are seeking.

For me, Clark has to be a real identity. Not some weird, exaggerated loser. I love Christopher Reeve and those movies, and I understand that Reeve's interpretation of Clark holds a special place in many fans' hearts. I just found it unnecessary and deceptive. If Superman has to play human part-time (as the original movie Jor-El explained), then there should be real stakes to it. If the Reeve Clark was ever outed as Superman, what repercussions are there exactly? He doesn't work at the Daily Planet anymore? He has to be Superman full time? He wanted that anyway, according to the first movie. It just doesn't really make sense to me. Clark has to be real, and something Superman wants to be, as a way to keep himself normal. This means he would desire things that any normal person would - a job, enough income, a significant other, children, etc..

With that, if Steve Lombard was talking down to Clark, then I would expect Clark to react as a normal human being would react being talked down to by a peer or co-worker, with the added understanding of not outing himself as Superman or reacting in a manner that is counter as to what is generally accepted as Superman's core beliefs (although having said that, Superman II proved Reeve's Clark wasn't above getting back at someone who wronged him). But yes, I want Clark to have those interactions, to have a job, to have a family, to have a home in Smallville to go back to. And I want that to feel real - not in a way that feels unnatural or farcical.

Regarding Batman, however....that's a whole separate conversation, as I really don't view Batman to be on Superman's level (in terms of how I believe their interactions should be like). But obviously DKR and post-Crisis lore has substantially changed that dynamic in a way I don't like, but that is more of a problem with how DC handles Batman IMO.

I don't necessarily think that a lot of Superman fans want him to be some weird exaggerated loser. Some of my favorite interpretations of Superman as Clark are the old George Reeves version, the old '60s cartoon version, Superman & Lois' version, and Waid's version in Birthright. I personally don't think any of them were exaggerated losers. I just get the feeling that the swing too far in the other direction that Byrne took with him as a star football playing '80s style yuppie was a bit much for some. That and he was so dismissive of his Kryptonian heritage were just things that didn't endear me to that version at all.

[Jon Clark]

I don't necessarily think that a lot of Superman fans want him to be some weird exaggerated loser. Some of my favorite interpretations of Superman as Clark are the old George Reeves version, the old '60s cartoon version, Superman & Lois' version, and Waid's version in Birthright. I personally don't think any of them were exaggerated losers. I just get the feeling that the swing too far in the other direction that Byrne took with him as a star football playing '80s style yuppie was a bit much for some. That and he was so dismissive of his Kryptonian heritage were just things that didn't endear me to that version at all.

I actually found that bit from Byrne's Man of Steel more realisitc for his Supeman. As someone who was adopted close to birth, I have more connection to the people who raised me and their heritage. Whoever my biological family ws, they are people I never met and have no connection to. If someone gave me a database on them, I'd have the same reaction Superman did- it's interesting but nothing that really changes anything about my life. Jor-El and krypton were as relevant to Superman's day-to-day life as J'onn J'onnz and Mars.

[LoveStar]

Superman is suppose to be larger than life. Doing ordinary things extraordinarily. The idea of the “Man of Tomorrow” is more or less stuck as the “Man of Yesterday” or stagnation. In this modern time, especially with embracing more diversity and being true to who you are with cultural background/heritage, this is how he should be connecting to humanity. His humanity shouldn’t be defined by passing in America and living as the most basic, outdated cliché of an American there is and glossing over his complexity as an alien from another world. Things shouldn’t come easy as it has been written in Post Crisis era. Superman/Kal/Clark is one man. There shouldn’t be one persona over the other.

Being Clark gives him a real life. He doesn't want to be a public figure. Whether he needs to eat or not, he wants the option to go out for a burger without dealing with people wanting some Superman favor. He wants to have a social life outside of crime fighting. A night out with the guys that isn't comparing strategies for defeating Mongul or listening to Bruce recount that night in the alley for the 5000th time. To have a movie date rather than a date spent visiting ancient battlefields

The thing about Clark and Diana is that they can do both. Ancient ruins and then club hopping all night in London.

Wonder Woman historically hasn't been interested. And vice versa.

That is until the ill-considered bad fan fictionesque Stu52

Diana has been interested since 1962….and vice versa

[phonogram12]

I actually found that bit from Byrne's Man of Steel more realisitc for his Supeman. As someone who was adopted close to birth, I have more connection to the people who raised me and their heritage. Whoever my biological family ws, they are people I never met and have no connection to. If someone gave me a database on them, I'd have the same reaction Superman did- it's interesting but nothing that really changes anything about my life. Jor-El and krypton were as relevant to Superman's day-to-day life as J'onn J'onnz and Mars.

I'm not saying Kal should necessarily be dismissive of his Earth heritage, either. I just think an equal balance would be ideal, like what I think was achieved in Birthright. In fact, I feel Waid preemptively responded to fans of Byrne's MOS with how his Jonathan Kent reacted when Kal first started looking into his Kryptonian heritage. Jonathan was angry and resentful of it at first, going as far as to trying to destroy the ship that brought Kal to Earth. It wasn't until Kal explained to him that researching his roots didn't mean that he considered himself any less their son. It's just that he was finally beginning to embrace the side of himself that he had been hiding from the world when his powers first began to emerge. It was in part a huge coming of age story for him as he finally began to piece together all these disparate facets of his life to create a new one out of it, one where no one is valued more than the other.

[kingaliencracker]

I actually found that bit from Byrne's Man of Steel more realisitc for his Supeman. As someone who was adopted close to birth, I have more connection to the people who raised me and their heritage. Whoever my biological family ws, they are people I never met and have no connection to. If someone gave me a database on them, I'd have the same reaction Superman did- it's interesting but nothing that really changes anything about my life. Jor-El and krypton were as relevant to Superman's day-to-day life as J'onn J'onnz and Mars.

There were definitely problems with Byrne's interpretation of Clark, as much as I enjoyed the reboot. Byrne has stated that he modeled his Clark after George Reeves' portrayal. But as much as I love the old series, there was a very minute difference between how Reeves portrayed Clark versus how he portrayed Superman. That's not realistic either if you're trying to protect a secret identity. George Reeves' Superman/Clark ultimately had the same problem as Christopher Reeve's Superman/Clark - why bother?

I think there is a more balanced approach. Clark is a real person, with friends, family, a job, and a home. But he's more withdrawn and perhaps a little bit meeker than Superman is.

[JAK]

Which do you think leaves the greater impact? Steve Lombard talking down to Clark Kent or Batman talking down to Superman?

Neither - Steve is to Clark as Batman is to Superman. lol Seriously, though, Bruce is closer to Clark than Steve is. And that's the only reason it should have more weight - and because the latter wouldn't normally happen.

I actually found that bit from Byrne's Man of Steel more realisitc for his Supeman. As someone who was adopted close to birth, I have more connection to the people who raised me and their heritage. Whoever my biological family ws, they are people I never met and have no connection to. If someone gave me a database on them, I'd have the same reaction Superman did- it's interesting but nothing that really changes anything about my life. Jor-El and krypton were as relevant to Superman's day-to-day life as J'onn J'onnz and Mars.

I'll get on my soapbox a bit again here: first, I agree (as I'm sure everyone knows by now). It does fit that Superman. But, as we saw by the Triangle Era, introduction of more tangible connections to his homeworld shifted that viewpoint. It's a longer progression than some would like, but I do see it as a progression.

[sunofdarkchild]

There are people who discover there true heritage later in life and adopt that identity completely. I've known people who discovered after their parents passed away that they were adopted because they were actually born to Jewish parents during or just prior to World War 2 in Europe. Their adopted parents never told them the truth and they only found out by going through documents in settling the estates. These people went on to embrace their Jewish identity and become Orthodox.

But I don't think that's the right approach for Superman. The Man Who has Everything bothers me because it says that in Superman's ideal world there would be no Lois, no Jimmy, no Lana, no Pete. Pretty much everyone Kal El supposedly cares about wouldn't be completely absent from his life if he got what would make him happy. Why does he pine after Lois at all if his dream-world is a world without her? Superman, despite being adopted like a Jewish child in Nazi Europe, is supposed to represent the immigrant to the US instead. He struggles to fit in and adapt to his host culture. Maybe he is nostalgic for the past he left behind, but he was sent to Earth and not a different world for a reason beyond mere survival.

I've said before, probably in this thread, that being Clark allows him to act more naturally than he ever could as Superman. Superman as a symbol for many ideals has to act in a certain way. He has to be perfect all the time. Clark can tease, make jokes, laugh, get angry, play practical jokes, in a way and at times that Superman never could. He can 'let his hair down' and allow himself to have the flaws that make people human. So yes, he is pretending to be weak as Clark, but he's being much more of himself in other ways.

[Filbert]

He loves Lois, Jimmy, and the rest, but he doesn't need them. His ideal is a world where he belongs, which he doesn't on Earth. He sees and hears things we can't comprehend. He isn't "letting his hair down" as Clark Kent, he has to restrict himself to make sure he doesn't destroy anything or anyone (cf. World of Cardboard speech). His pranks are sophisticated attempts to teach lessons in convoluted ways. He's most at home in the Fortress with his science experiments, where he can do anything, or Kandor, where he's normal.
I know my first sentence sounds harsh, but it's a spiritual thing. I'm an Orthodox Jew, but I think it's a feeling any religious person has, of belonging to something greater than one's immediate surroundings. To Superman, that 'greater thing' is Krypton.
Also, he was sent to Earth for one, single reason--mere survival.
Did any of that make sense, or offend anybody?

[sunofdarkchild]

He loves Lois, Jimmy, and the rest, but he doesn't need them. His ideal is a world where he belongs, which he doesn't on Earth. He sees and hears things we can't comprehend. He isn't "letting his hair down" as Clark Kent, he has to restrict himself to make sure he doesn't destroy anything or anyone (cf. World of Cardboard speech). His pranks are sophisticated attempts to teach lessons in convoluted ways. He's most at home in the Fortress with his science experiments, where he can do anything, or Kandor, where he's normal.
I know my first sentence sounds harsh, but it's a spiritual thing. I'm an Orthodox Jew, but I think it's a feeling any religious person has, of belonging to something greater than one's immediate surroundings. To Superman, that 'greater thing' is Krypton.
Also, he was sent to Earth for one, single reason--mere survival.
Did any of that make sense, or offend anybody?

I'm also an Orthodox Jew. That's how I met those people who found their way to Judaism after realizing later in life that they were adopted during the Holocaust. That's also why I hate how Superman's been changed from a Moses figure into a Jesus figure. But Superman was not meant to represent the Orthodox experience. He was meant to represent the experience of the immigrants who did not stay Orthodox and assimilated to at least some extent, like his creators.

In most versions Jor El chose Earth specifically over other planets. In some versions he even chose the Kents specifically to raise his son. His desires for how his son would be raised and lead his life were huge considerations and the deciding factor in why Earth was chosen as opposed to Oa or any other planet in the DC Universe.

If Lois is truly not part of Superman's ideal world after he has known her for years, then he has no business marrying her. In your interpretation not only should Clark Kent not exist, but Kal El should just leave Earth altogether and never return. If he doesn't belong that much, if he can only be at home in his fortress, if it is that difficult for him to avoid breaking the cardboard, then he has no business interacting with humans at all. He should just go and find another planet with people who are more like him and live there.

[DochaDocha]

If Lois is truly not part of Superman's ideal world after he has known her for years, then he has no business marrying her. In your interpretation not only should Clark Kent not exist, but Kal El should just leave Earth altogether and never return. If he doesn't belong that much, if he can only be at home in his fortress, if it is that difficult for him to avoid breaking the cardboard, then he has no business interacting with humans at all. He should just go and find another planet with people who are more like him and live there.

I just figured that Superman's subconscious was so super-rational that if Krypton never blew up, he would never arrive on Earth and would never meet Lois. Probably that's too rational for conjuring up what his idealized, fantasy life would be, but then again the illusory world the Black Mercy trapped him in wasn't an idealized world.

[Jon Clark]

He loves Lois, Jimmy, and the rest, but he doesn't need them. His ideal is a world where he belongs, which he doesn't on Earth. He sees and hears things we can't comprehend. He isn't "letting his hair down" as Clark Kent, he has to restrict himself to make sure he doesn't destroy anything or anyone (cf. World of Cardboard speech). His pranks are sophisticated attempts to teach lessons in convoluted ways. He's most at home in the Fortress with his science experiments, where he can do anything, or Kandor, where he's normal.
I know my first sentence sounds harsh, but it's a spiritual thing. I'm an Orthodox Jew, but I think it's a feeling any religious person has, of belonging to something greater than one's immediate surroundings. To Superman, that 'greater thing' is Krypton.
Also, he was sent to Earth for one, single reason--mere survival.
Did any of that make sense, or offend anybody?

It makes sense in that I can follow your logic. I don't agree with your conclusions but i see how you reached them.

To me the idea that Kal-El/Clark/Superman sees living in Kandor as "normal" makes no sense. To him living on Krypton is like you or me choosing to be wrapped in cotton. He'd be a bird unable to fly. A rabbit reduced to moving like a turtle. Whether it would be the same for Kara or other Kryptonians is a different question, but for Superman he has had his abilities his entire life, That "world of cardboard" is his normal.

To use your religion analogy- Superman isn't becoming part of something larger on Krypton, he's choosing to cut himself off from something larger. He's looking at a society of unbelievers and saying "hey it would be so much easier if i just became like them".