Split/compartmentalise superman or amalgamate superman portrayals

[manwhohaseverything]

Voted for the amalgamation.

Now, if DC really does split their publishing lines into different continuities, like "champion of the people" Golden Age and "space jesus" Silver Age, then fine, lean into that and play up the different viewpoints and narrative possibilities. If we're going to have multiple Supermen running around and likely staring in separate titles, then you *need* to make them stand out from one another, otherwise there's no point to the whole thing in the first place.

But generally speaking? Each era brings a new facet to explore, and when mixed together correctly you end up with a fascinating, nuanced, complex and layered Superman capable of operating in any imaginable genre or story without losing sight of his character. And while DC has struggled to find the right combination of elements, I do believe there *is* a way to write Clark with all eras in mind that will satisfy (if not thrill) almost everyone.

I don't believe in reduction. I believe in addition. The different versions of Clark we've seen over the last (almost) century can serve to make a better Superman. Breaking the character down, taking things away from him....isn't that what everyone (including me) have been bitching about for the last year or two?

I don't believe we need to differentiate more than whats already historicaly there. These takes have different flavours already in my book. For me they just need to be brought to current world by someone who absolutely loves the character(that's why i added the changes. Which is just my suggestion and ideas that is strictly optional except for k-metal ) . See, my initial idea was to split action comics into three like in the old days.but, that might not work. I haven't fully taken into account market/business side of things. So, guilty is charged.

But, my problem is we don't get a nuanced character more often than not.we lose the nuances as matter of fact. Sometimes it's confusing as hell.for example, when ever someone like grant morrison writes the book. He writes a super intelligent man from farmlands of kansas. But, many writers him as simple guy from farmlands of kansan. There are things(irreconcilable differences) that can't folded in one superman.these things are not minor things either. They impact the characterisation . they will be lost.for example, if we create an amalgam superman. He will be clark kent(all encompassing identity ) most likely . You can say goodbye to the guy who remembered krypton and had main all-encompassing identity kal el. Also, you can. Either have pa be alive or dead. Not both. thats how it goes. Here, we can do both.

Consider superman to be three sets of attributes who you want to unite. Only the intersections survive. Any differences/ subtleties /nuances gets erased. We get an archetype. We get a guy who has echoes of the past. But the past itself is distorted and just an echo.

I am not taking things away from the character. I just want people to get to know different versions of the character at their best. Give them an option to have their superman.instead of ploughing through the differences and forcing an amalgamation, because i do believe they are different characters with big overlaps.maybe in time, people will try other versions of the character and truly understand them . What they were. What they represented. Intead of saying, "not my superman". Or not,maybe they will cling to their superman. But, atleast the superman the character wouldn't become a archetype With people seeing/reading whatever they want to. Atleast, these visions for the character would not be tainted.
For me differences are major nuances of these versions. They will always be thrown away. There by creating a shell.

[Mago dos Gatos]

I personally don't see how the split would work in action.
The past eras of Superman would be more easily categorized,but what about the future?
Let's say they are divided like Golden age,Silver Age,Bronze Age,the 2000s,New 52 and Rebirth.Does current Superman can recall things like Bizarro World or the original encounter with Mxyzptlk,since they know belong to a different Superman?Does this mean Silver Age never fought Doomsday?Golden Age Superman has the smaller villain gallery?
I rather that DC focus their efforts in Superman going foward instead of changing the past again.

[manwhohaseverything]

I personally don't see how the split would work in action.
The past eras of Superman would be more easily categorized,but what about the future?
Let's say they are divided like Golden age,Silver Age,Bronze Age,the 2000s,New 52 and Rebirth.Does current Superman can recall things like Bizarro World or the original encounter with Mxyzptlk,since they know belong to a different Superman?Does this mean Silver Age never fought Doomsday?Golden Age Superman has the smaller villain gallery?
I rather that DC focus their efforts in Superman going foward instead of changing the past again.

Bizarro world was part of silverage out there adventures. So, it will be given to that guy. Postcrisis guy will have his clone superman(bizarro) and Connor kent. Since, cloning and genetic engineering was a main part byrne reboot and his krypton birthing matrix plays a huge role.
Silverage guy never fought doomsday,yes.(note:if they want to they will have to create a doomsday. Doomsday and death(already happened with sandman thing if remer, correctly) has to be of different for silverage guy . Since, that guy has superintelligence. A punching contest would be stupid ). Yes, goldenage superman will have smaller "villain" gallery initially.but, he will have enough problems as is.
Nobody is changing the past. Just acknowledging different version. Seperating the visions. And bring them to people/letting them move forward in a way that's not contradictory to the vision of these eras. That is it. Maybe it's because i am a Hindu. This one superman for all thing just doesn't cut it for me. Like him or not you are stuck with him,is just restricting for the reader.

[llozymandias]

This is where having a multiverse (or multiverses) comes in really handy. Every version could have its own earth/universe. Btw golden-age Superman had many villains. It's just that most of them have been forgotten.

[manwhohaseverything]

This is where having a multiverse (or multiverses) comes in really handy. Every version could have its own earth/universe. Btw golden-age Superman had many villains. It's just that most of them have been forgotten.

I am speaking in comparative terms. We also are discussing this in light of the generations thing that dc is going to do. It might not be connected to the multiverse. Wonderwoman has her entire publications split into generations. So, Superman's history can be done as well.

[Robanker]

Amalgamation; Clark is a deep character. Splitting him up piecemeal to appease fans who can't accept some facets essentially robs the character a lot of his elements. It's why we lost Krypto, Supergirl, and so on in '86. And on the matter of the Legion, Clark just lost them again. Grumble Bendis grumble. I even made a reaction image for when it comes up now because I was tired of just complaining about it.

bENdIS.jpg

I think Superdad is generally a decent basis, but he needs to be a bit more brash with some golden age contempt for corruption and a silver age sense of mischief. I still wish there was a moment that Clark and Jon dropped a Prius on some white supremacist's pickup truck, with Clark making his son promise not to tell Lois who reveals she knows about it when they read the next morning's headline. There's a little too much reverence for him as an institution by writers that don't necessarily love Clark, but respect him as an icon.

Voted for the amalgamation.

Now, if DC really does split their publishing lines into different continuities, like "champion of the people" Golden Age and "space jesus" Silver Age, then fine, lean into that and play up the different viewpoints and narrative possibilities. If we're going to have multiple Supermen running around and likely staring in separate titles, then you *need* to make them stand out from one another, otherwise there's no point to the whole thing in the first place.

But generally speaking? Each era brings a new facet to explore, and when mixed together correctly you end up with a fascinating, nuanced, complex and layered Superman capable of operating in any imaginable genre or story without losing sight of his character. And while DC has struggled to find the right combination of elements, I do believe there *is* a way to write Clark with all eras in mind that will satisfy (if not thrill) almost everyone.

I don't believe in reduction. I believe in addition. The different versions of Clark we've seen over the last (almost) century can serve to make a better Superman. Breaking the character down, taking things away from him....isn't that what everyone (including me) have been bitching about for the last year or two?

+1, particularly what's emboldened.

[DC Classics]

This is where having a multiverse (or multiverses) comes in really handy. Every version could have its own earth/universe. Btw golden-age Superman had many villains. It's just that most of them have been forgotten.

That's right. That is why DC's classic Multiverse Parallel Earths concept is important, that way instead of just the constant reboots, DC could remain true to the many classic versions that fans know and still love, and could include the Donnerverse Chris Reeve one, etc. and could have him meet the newer versions and the historic versions, could do a new Reign of the Supermen.

[manwhohaseverything]

Amalgamation; Clark is a deep character. Splitting him up piecemeal to appease fans who can't accept some facets essentially robs the character a lot of his elements. It's why we lost Krypto, Supergirl, and so on in '86. And on the matter of the Legion, Clark just lost them again. Grumble Bendis grumble. I even made a reaction image for when it comes up now because I was tired of just complaining about it.

bENdIS.jpg

I think Superdad is generally a decent basis, but he needs to be a bit more brash with some golden age contempt for corruption and a silver age sense of mischief. I still wish there was a moment that Clark and Jon dropped a Prius on some white supremacist's pickup truck, with Clark making his son promise not to tell Lois who reveals she knows about it when they read the next morning's headline. There's a little too much reverence for him as an institution by writers that don't necessarily love Clark, but respect him as an icon.



+1, particularly what's emboldened.

No, krpto and supergirl was lost due to them putting emphasis on "last son of Krypton", end of multiverse as a concept and this whole notion of "one world,one superman for everyone" .here, there isn't going to be anything of that sort. Everything will be preserved.
The statements like "he just needs to be a bit more brash" Is very subjective.It speaks of the lack of clear characterisation. It can't be an attribute of a character. For example, fighter is general term used in dbz. It very broad. Goku and vegeta are both said to be fighters. But, that cannot be clear more resolved answer. There are many kinds of fighters. Goku is a "martial artists who trained under roshi, kai and whis" in different specific forms. This is an attribute. Vegeta is a sayian warrior. This lacks resolution but still very much specific. A character can't whatever a everyone wants. Thats an archetype.if superman is just an archetype. Then all might, sentry, hyperion , one punch man , some version of shazam, supreme, heck! Even injusticeman is also Superman the list goes on and on. Why should we buy the main canon version when there are better portrayals of the same archetypes outside? That would be a question.

The main focus isn't appeasing fans. It is removing inconsistencies, preserving characterisation and giving the characters a clear definition . So that writer don't write him as caricature or an archetype. So, writer don't write the character with general statements like "hope harder".this was not my criticism but a member whose avatar was @myskin i believe . I disagreeed with him then, now i have changed my mind.

Making superman into everything and anything has only hurt the character.it confuses reader and writers. They cling to their notion of "classic" more often than not which is vague set of values. This makes it harder for any storyteller to tell anything. How can they tell a superman story when they don't know what superman is. I mean, this vagness in the idea of what amounts to "classic" superman makes it very hard. Let's be honest, many have hard time buying the vigilante, the weird space man and the awe shucks!stereotypical farmboy boyscout are the same guy. How can it be amalgamated?Clarity in characterisation matters. The lack of it hurts big time. That's my argument.

"Do the right thing" That's superman's motivation right? These three big transformations(big ones i have noticed ) that happened to the character slowly with each small and big retcons, re-imaginngs of the origin and changes in personality through out his tenure of past 80 years will cause character expressing that(what is that right thing) in very different ways."the man of tomorrow" won't say the same thing "man of action" or "man of steel" would. Because their worlds are different, they grew up differently and their philosophies are different.

Edit:- i haven't seen anyone who advocate for amalgamation putting forth their attributes for their "superman" character or how they are going to go about it.

[daBronzeBomma]

Amalgamation all the way.

I will never want Superman to become a team concept like GL or a legacy concept like the Flash. I don't want to see multiple Supermen interacting with each other on any kind of regular basis, outside of an extremely rare multiversal Crisis.

There's ultimately only one Superman, paradoxically with countless permutations over his 80+ year history across all media.

Amalgamation is the best way forward. The problem is IMO no one can agree on how to incorporate and then maintain it.

Grant Morrison probably gave us the best attempt at this with his Action Comics run during the New52, but look at what followed.

The real challenge, IMO, is finding a way to meld the Golden Age mythos to the Silver Age mythos, and then addng the most worthy bits of latter eras. But the biggest gap is between the Superman of 1938 and the Superman of 1963. Bridge that successfully, and most of the heavy lifting is done.

[manwhohaseverything]

Amalgamation all the way.

I will never want Superman to become a team concept like GL or a legacy concept like the Flash. I don't want to see multiple Supermen interacting with each other on any kind of regular basis, outside of an extremely rare multiversal Crisis.

There's ultimately only one Superman, paradoxically with countless permutations over his 80+ year history across all media.

Amalgamation is the best way forward. The problem is IMO no one can agree on how to incorporate and then maintain it.

Grant Morrison probably gave us the best attempt at this with his Action Comics run during the New52, but look at what followed.

The real challenge, IMO, is finding a way to meld the Golden Age mythos to the Silver Age mythos, and then addng the most worthy bits of latter eras. But the biggest gap is between the Superman of 1938 and the Superman of 1963. Bridge that successfully, and most of the heavy lifting is done.

Nobody is talking about making a team or legacy of superman in the main universe. Just creating different timestreams or multiversal incarnations or generations or whatever dc is calling now. That's it. Read what i wrote. It's connected to the current rumoured direction of dc.
These are the main transformations of the character.i noticed through out his publication history.

[The World]

I think the most prominent question of an amalgamation route is how are you going to do that without watering everything down? I think with some overhauling you could make Bronze Age Superman as a merger of Golden and Silver but even that wouldn't come without at least a few concessions from both era's.

[manwhohaseverything]

I think the most prominent question of an amalgamation route is how are you going to do that without watering everything down? I think with some overhauling you could make Bronze Age Superman as a merger of Golden and Silver but even that wouldn't come without at least a few concessions from both era's.

Precisely, my point. Why do it when we have multiverse or generation or whatever dc is calling it now, exists or going to exist. Fans should all be pushing for it. Amalgamation is only a problem when we have to have only one superman. Even, dctv is introducing multiple supermen. This separation is the need of the hour. Let everyone have their superman.

[Ascended]

I don't believe we need to differentiate more than whats already historicaly there.

No, by and large we don't. There's enough difference between Golden and Silver Ages to make those Supermen look like two radically different characters. The more modern post-Crisis take (I'm thinking early post-Crisis before pre-Crisis elements began returning) is also unique enough from the other two to stand out. And the current version, the Superdad, is also different enough to be self-sustaining.

But, my problem is we don't get a nuanced character more often than not.we lose the nuances as matter of fact. Sometimes it's confusing as hell.

True, but that's not on the character so much as the writers. We've seen writers who can write a fully realized Superman who pulls the best themes and tones and ideas from every era. The problem is DC doesn't hire those guys very often. So we'll get bad stories no matter what.

Either have pa be alive or dead. Not both. thats how it goes. Here, we can do both.

And in specific things like this, yeah you gotta pick which version to roll with. But you can still take different things from different eras and weave them together. And with the Kents, you can always split the difference and have Pa die and Ma survive. That gives pre-Crisis fans the death of a parent and the learning moment that to brings Clark (which is super important, I think) while still having a parent around in the present day for Clark to talk to (which post-Crisis fans are all hung up on). So both "sides" get what they're looking for even if they have to compromise a little. In some things, yeah one group or another will lose out. Big deal, they'll get their preference on another aspect of the mythos.

Consider superman to be three sets of attributes who you want to unite. Only the intersections survive. Any differences/ subtleties /nuances gets erased. We get an archetype. We get a guy who has echoes of the past. But the past itself is distorted and just an echo.

True, but again, we'll get that anyway. The Superman in 2010 was very different from the Superman in 87; even though it was the same continuity tons of things had been changed and the character was written differently even when those changes to the history weren't a factor. It's never been Clark or his fractured history that is the real problem, it's always DC's inability to understand Superman and what his appeal is. They haven't understood him for thirty years, and with the current management that isn't going to change whether they try to split him up into different versions or try to create a singular version influenced by the entire publication history.

Whether they split Clark up or not, the real problems here aren't going away. Not until we get fresh blood in management.

I am not taking things away from the character. I just want people to get to know different versions of the character at their best.

We're not going to get any version of Superman at his best when DC is prioritizing him the way they have been. And this is also what collections and trades are for. I discovered the glory of Golden Age (and Silver, and Bronze, etc) Superman through the trades, and so can everyone else. I get what you mean, don't get me wrong, and there *is* some sense to it. And who knows, maybe right now this is what DC needs to do. But it seems to me that if you have different versions, and each can only play with some of the toys in the toy box, you're not getting Superman at his best, you're getting small pieces of him. Even though DC hasn't yet figured out the right way to handle a "everything counts" approach I'd rather they keep working at it until they figure it out, rather than make the divides in Clark's history even more impassable.

[SiegePerilous02]

Batman can come very close to an "Everything Counts" version where all aspects of his various eras and personas can mesh together in a mostly coherent arc. At least compared to the other two members of the Trinity. That's basically what Morrison made appealing about Batman in his run: the same idealistic, adventurous crusader who may-or-may-not have a 5th dimensional fan like Bat-Mite and dated Kathy Kane is the same guy who got broken by Bane and had one of his sidekicks murdered, and became a more paranoid, darker figure. He's doing something similar, on a smaller scale, with Hal. Basically, if everything counts these characters have pretty crazy, varied lives.

We aren't able to get that with Superman, at least not yet. Morrison came close with the New 52 by starting Clark back at Golden Age levels and characterization before moving him into the Silver Age, but it came with a controversial reboot. It would have been better implemented within a longer pre-Flashpoint run that could be similar to his Batman run. A Superman who starts off at Golden age levels, has experienced at least one adoptive parent passing on, grew up going on weird adventures with the Legion, gradually grows in power, eventually marries Lois Lane, dies and comes back, and has all his prominent allies across various eras would be much more coherent and stronger than any of the individual versions are separately. Silver Age Superman has most of the iconic lore and power levels, Golden Age has the core concepts of the social justice crusader and immigrant, and the modern one has some important milestones like the death, marriage and Jon. It'd be better if we have them all in one character.

[marhawkman]

Certain version don't even have the same POWERS. Golden age made the Donnerverse movies seem tame in how they portrayed his powers. One was even a limited form of shapeshifting. It was explained as selectively tensing muscles in his face, but the end result was to change the shape of his face.