DC's attitude adjustment and long live the Classic Superman!

[jmr72777]

Captain Kal,

The evidence to support Clark's growing powers over time is still in MOS#1.  Clark didn't start flying until he was 17-ish, remember?  And he was definitely older than 8 when he looked into the next room and found Ma's purse with his x-ray vision, no?

It's not baseless, and there is evidence to support it.  Again, how many football seasons could Clark have participated in in high school?  If he won the last 5 games for the team, SOLO, that would still be a minority in the season, and more than enough to only start raising eyebrows then.  I appreciate your attention to detail.  

Given all that is actually stated during Byrne's run in MOS and elsewhere, Superman does not appreciably lose his stored power for any period less than three days. Nothing in canon supports the baseless speculation that his younger self ever had bouts of losing power in shorter periods. Indeed, Jor-El did state that the yellow star would make Kal-El grow ever more powerful. Speculation only counts if some evidence exists to support it. It fails even more if evidence contradicts it.

I don't believe that it was ever clearly stated that he had bouts of losing his powers per se.  I am merely looking at it from the standpoint of what a rechargable battery can do.  It stores energy just fine as long as it is plugged in.  However, it doesn't store energy nearly as well if you're using it at the same time.  Now, if the energy is low to begin with, and you use energy while it's charging, you could run into problems.  This on top of the fact that as he gets older, his body should be able to store and process the energy more efficiently (one would think.)  Putting this all together should reasonably support what you may claim to be a "baseless speculation."

Furthermore, if you want to take it one step further, the powers would never necessarily disappear per se, but the power levels would fluctuate.  I don't think that THAT is too much of a stretch.....

[Super Monkey]

Super Monkey,

I'm going to restate this point blank, and ask if you agree:

I think you can agree (I may be wrong) that the (for example) Elliot S! Maggin Superman/Kal-El paradigm, their relationship to the whole, and the "Kal-El" persona's prominence is VERY different from how it appears in "Three Supermen From Krypton," "Superman's Big Brother", and "Supergirl."

If so, how would you describe the difference.  If not, please explain.

[Of course, if you'd rather not, that's fine too   ]

When I read Superman comics from the 40's, 50's, 60's 70's and early 80's, aka pre-reboot Superman comics, I always had the sense that it was the same person, any difference perceived was just due to writing style rather than any change in his personality or values.

When I read the post-reboot Superman comics, which I don't not read anymore, I do not get this sense. I called him Superman in name only.
That's not to say that all post-reboot stories are awful, just the vast majority of them.

Some good Modern Superman Comics:


https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales3/deadman-xmas/
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/a/ProArt/swan3.php
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales2/truth/
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales3/last/
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales2/thesuperman/
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales2/thesuperman/2/
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales2/thesuperman/3/
https://www.supermanthroughtheages.com/tales3/typical/

[Just a fan]

One of the big differences between pre and post crisis Clark/Superman is in pre the Kents were gone, and even though the lesson they taught him would go on Clark was disposable. Superman could always just pack it in and create an other persona if he needed to.  With the Kent’s alive it brings a whole new dimension to his life, one being if he abandoned Clark Kent, how would it affect them and how would they explain it to everyone. Plus it affects his line of thinking and feeling, one of the things, I believe that made him grown into Superman was not only did he lose Krypton and everything he had there, He lost the Kent’s at a young age also and his fathers last words to him were along the line of  “ It’s time to put away childish things and become a man, to become the force for good that only you can”.  I think this was a very internal motivation for him to not let Pa Kent down.

Clark/Superman/Kal-El is one of the most complicated characters in comics because he is a man of 3 worlds, as Clark he has his life as an ordinary human with friends that treat him as an equal and he has gained some success in his chosen field, which has earned him respect and admiration of his peer group but doesn’t really set him apart from them. As Superman he is viewed as a the ultimate hero, and force for good even his co-members of the meta-human world look at him in awe most of the time (with the possible expectation of Wonder Woman and Batman.) As Kal-El he is the man with out a world and will always be separate from us, other alien heroes can go home again if they change things about themselves or are willing to accept something on their home worlds Kal doesn’t have that option.  This may be why he embraced the Kryptonian culture as much as he could; it was all that he had to keep him connected and the memory of his home world alive.
 The discovery of Kandor while giving him a physical connection could never become his home, because that would mean leaving every bit of Clark/Superman behind and wouldn’t allow him to live up to the Kent’s dreams for him.  And as he discovered in the arc “who took the super out of superman” he can’t give up being Clark or Superman either.  While he may walk among us and even inspire us to be better then we think we can be, Clark/Superman/Kal-El will never truelly be one of us.
Not even Supergirl had to deal with this. She was born and raised as Kara Zor-El, became a Supergirl, and adopted the identity of Linda Lee, her adtoped parents were still alive as well as her birth parents, in many ways she had it much eaiser then her cousin ever did or could.

Just my thoughts, feel free to comment or flame

[jmr72777]

Super Monkey,

Asked and answered, of course.  I wish I shared your opinion of the pre-crisis SUPERMAN.  All I can say is that while I do enjoy the stories and the character, there are certain things which just got better starting in 1985-6.

As for you example of the modern stories that aren't bad, that's a very interesting selection you have.  Some don't take place in current continuity, others are written to purposely resemble previous ages and the remaining was written by......... well, nevermind that.  I appreciate the nature of your choices.

Just A Fan,

You've reminded me of another thing that I didn't really like about the Pre-Crisis SUPERMAN -- The feeling that he could abandon CLARK KENT and just be SUPERMAN.  This always seemed to be to be a bit shallow, because it led one to believe that he didn't really care for the friendships he had made as CLARK to Lois, Jimmy, Perry and the rest.  Certainly, according to "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow," there were contingencies in place, but that's an awful lot to expect, isn't it?  That was a special circumstance anyway.

[The Starchild]

Super Monkey's original post in this thread was about how much he liked the Man of Tomorrow archives and what a great thing it was that the book was published and that DC has a few "classic Superman" projects in the pipeline.  This is all great stuff.

But here's what I want to know:  How come whenever anyone posts anywhere that s/he likes the Silver Age Superman, it somehow degenerates into an interminable Byrne MOS argument, rehashing all the minutae in the 1986 mini-series?  What is the alleged connection?  This has been a continuing pattern for the last 18 or 19 years.  When are we going to move past it folks?  JB certainly isn't worth all the talk he generates, and his continuity is over.

It's time to move on.

[TELLE]

But here's what I want to know:  How come whenever anyone posts anywhere that s/he likes the Silver Age Superman, it somehow degenerates into an interminable Byrne MOS argument, rehashing all the minutae in the 1986 mini-series?  What is the alleged connection?  This has been a continuing pattern for the last 18 or 19 years.  When are we going to move past it folks?  JB certainly isn't worth all the talk he generates, and his continuity is over.

It's time to move on.

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but what is the current canonical DC version of Superman's origin/heritage?  Is there an intro for beginners on the "official" SM homepage or a new miniseries/origin issue that has replaced Man of Steel for a new generation?

[The Starchild]

I'm sure I'm going to regret this, but what is the current canonical DC version of Superman's origin/heritage?  Is there an intro for beginners on the "official" SM homepage or a new miniseries/origin issue that has replaced Man of Steel for a new generation?

My understanding is that Man of Steel was retconned out in a recent issue of Superman involving the Futuresmiths.  Superman's new origin was given in the Birthright miniseries.

The artwork on the hardcover collection actually gives the full title as:
Superman: Birthright: The Origin of the Man of Steel (this last part is in really small type):



The reviews at amazon are worth reading.

So is the book.

[jmr72777]

My apologies Starchild for the degeneration of this thread into another JB rant.  The interesting part of that is, while I do appreciate his contribution to what I perceive as another great chapter in SUPERMAN's life (as the floodgates of criticism open wide...) I don't see him as the messiah or anything.  I simply don't understand why people hate the so-called "Iron Age" so.  I mean, even SuperMonkey's list of good modern stories is essentially bare of any regular stories from the past 15-20 years.

I can certainly recall my favorite stories from EACH age, despite the overall merits of the age.  Yes, some of them are imaginary tales, but some of them are just regular canonical stories that reflect that par for stories in that age.

Call be stubborn but I just don't understand (despite reading the whole page devoted to it on this site) the sheer, unadulterated hatred for "the Iron Age."