June 12th is considered as Superman Day!
Enjoy the day while it lasts! Days are temporary but Superman is forever!
131,268
pages
ALL POSTS
Kal-El (Smallville)
Tagged Posts
On April 18, 1938, everyone's favorite Man of Steel made his debut on the pages of Action Comics #1!
It's safe to say that Superman looks better than most of us would at 84 years old. Happy birthday to such a legendary hero and may he keep fighting the good fight!
Hello, ladies and gentlemen! A few days ago, Superman redditor Tammi1545 made a post in which he dismissed the Henry Cavill vs Tyler Hoechlin debate, saying that both Supermen are equal in their legitimacy and that people are allowed to like both Supermen, and you know what? I agree with him, which motivated me to make a post (both here and on Reddit) in which I debunked, or at least tried to debunk, the idea of a definitive version of Superman and argued that each version of Superman had their own legitimacy and their own appeal to a particular audience.
You can consider this post as a fun little addendum to my previous post, and now I begin to ask: is it even fair to compare the multiple versions of Superman? Let's use Henry and Tyler as examples. In a logical world, Henry and Tyler wouldn't be compared because the Supermen they play live in completely separate worlds and their stories are very different. The Superman played by Henry is an insecure rookie trying to find his place in a world that fears and mistrusts superhumans, while Tyler portrays a veteran Superman that has started a family in a world that has largely accepted superhumans as part of daily life.
Some people would say that the only thing these stories have in common is that Superman is featured in them, although that's not entirely true. Yes, it's the obvious element between them but there are other similarities. There is the very serious and dramatic tone, there's the presence of Kryptonian antagonists in both stories (although Man of Steel is more direct in its depiction of Kryptonians), there is Superman's association with the U.S. military, and of course, there's the fact that both stories are full reboots of the Superman saga. But even then, that's not really enough to justify a full comparison because of how those respective stories develop.
It would be like comparing Batman to the Punisher. They're similar, but only in very superficial ways, and in the end, you'd find that a comparison wouldn't be entirely fair because, invariably, you'd find more differences than similarities between the characters, so the question is "should these Supermen even be compared?". Normally, I would have said "no", but let's face it, we're Superman fans. We were bound to compare these Supermen (Henry and Tyler, in particular) sooner or later. It was inevitable.
Both Supermen star in different stories. On one hand, you have a movie series that focuses on Superman's origin and struggles to become a symbol of hope, and on the other hand, you have a TV show with a veteran Superman who has also carved out a place for himself in the world and whose biggest struggle right now is how to raise a family. Both stories take different approaches in their storytelling, but at the same time, those approaches are inspired by past versions of Superman, whether they are comics, movies or TV shows, while still adding new elements. As a result, both versions of Superman have the potential of being the definitve version of Superman for an entire generation.
But then, come the long-term fans, myself include. We've all formed our opinions on the stuff that's come beforehand, and suddenly, here's something brand new. Naturally, we were gonna get excited and we were gonna talk about it and because there are so many of us, opinions were going to be very different. Now, suppose that you're talking to a fellow fan about these new stories and he has the exact opposite stance that you do. No, I'm not gonna specify which one it is, whichever you think is better, he thinks the opposite. Well, you'll want to know why, won't you? And if the other guy starts dishing out reasons that appear to miss the point or are just flat-out lies and are kinda disparaging to the character that disagrees with him, you'll want to set him straight, and thus we have a debate.
The more passionate people are about which one is better, the more stubborn they will be about it and suddenly, the debate will turn ugly. Next thing you know, this debate is no longer about the quality of the story, it's the about the quality about the people talking about these stories. The main point is suddenly "you aren't a true fan because you like that Superman story. That means you don't understand Superman, not like me. I like this story and I do understand Superman. I'm a truer fan than you." And this brings my journey back full circle to my previous post, in which I tried to debunk the idea that somewhere, out there, is a true Superman, a single, definitive version by which all the others are judged and can't measure up to. There are Superman stories I genuinely dislike, but I still stand by what I said: "the definitive Superman does not exist".
Even if there are versions of Superman I dislike, such as the Clark Kent from Smallville (he doesn't even call himself Superman), the tyrannical dictator from Injustice or the flying plot device from Young Justice, they are still considered true versions of Superman, at least as far as I'm concerned, and thus the "you're not a true fan of Superman because you like that movie/TV show/comic book/whatever" is rendered completely invalid. Hell, both Warner and DC consider those Supermen I mentioned as legitimate and valid, so why should my opinion be any different from those of the official creators?
Let me ask you something: what is Superman to you? Everyone has a different idea/interpretation for the character. Some stick to the aggressive and intimidating vigilante from the Golden Age, some prefer the campy and light-hearted superhero from the Silver Age, others prefer the more serious and grounded character from the John Byrne era. They're all Superman.
There are many different aspects of Superman's personality that have been emphasized over the years. The DC Extended Universe and the Arrowverse emphasize different aspects, but they are still both valid interpretations of Superman, no matter which way you slice it. Therefore, saying that one or the other is a greater validation of one's fandom is nonsensical. You cannot base your understanding of this whole franchise on just one story. You can't even base it on 10 stories! Your understanding of Superman must take everything into consideration and I do mean everything, including comic books, movies, TV shows, video games, and so on and so forth.
Although the core elements of Superman have remained intact over the years, the fact is this: Superman is whatever society needs him to be at the time. When society needs him to be a champion of social justice, he'll be a champion of social justice. When society needs him to be an intergalactic protector, he'll be an intergalactic protector. Hell, Injustice even proved that Superman can work as a villain, of all things! Obviously, not every version of Superman will appeal to everyone, but there's nothing wrong with that. The same can be said for every other long-running character in the realm of fiction, like Sherlock Holmes, Godzilla and James Bond.
This is ultimately the reason this debate has gotten as ugly as it has. It's not that one story is inherently better than the other (criticism and preference are subjective, after all), it's that people have been using it to boost their own egos and tear others down. Like I said, a comparison between these two stories was always gonna happen. Debates between those who make those comparisons were always an inevitability. The ugliness, though? That's avoidable. That's something that, honestly, never should have happened and this is why I have approached this topic the way I have.
This is a debate about a subjective topic. Neither side was ever going to win. We can only speak for ourselves as individuals. I certainly won't discourage debate or discussion, so long as it remains civil. I'm sick and tired of debates about the "definitive Superman". They just need to stop. We're all fans here, we just see things differently. Is it really so hard to understand that we can want different things out of the same stories? This whole debate is basically anathema to what Superman stands for! Superman is supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart!
In closing here, this post was never meant to be a definitive answer on which is the definitive and perfect Superman. It's meant to be an example on how anyone, regardless on which side they fall on, should approach the topic.
Well, that's all I have for you this time. Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think about all of this. As always, this is the start of a dialogue and you have my thanks for participating in it and for taking the time to read what I had to say. Posting my opinions in this website doesn't make them any greater or more valid than yours and I'm just glad to have this privilege and this honor to share my opinions with you, although I do admit I did hijack this particular topic a little bit. The only thing I ask of you is to deliver your opinions in a polite and civilized manner. We're all Superman fans here, we just see things differently. This post is also present on Reddit, so feel free to check it out, leave a comment below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there!
Hello, everyone! I'm here to talk about a particular topic that has been around for quite some time, a topic has had me scratching my head a little. Whenever a new adaptation of Superman gets announced, a section of the Superman fanbase (I don't know if they're a vocal minority or a very sizeable crowd) will often claim that the new Superman is very different and distant from the real Superman. This is an idea that needs to be nipped in the bud before too many people start believing it.
Let me ask you a question: if none of the guys pictured above is the definitive Superman, then who is? No, really, this is a sincere question. Can you answer it? By saying that none of the men above aren't the true Superman, the implication is that somewhere, out there, is a true Superman, a single, definitive version by which all the others are judged and can't measure up to. So, which one is it? You have dozens of movies and TV shows and thousands of comic books to choose from, so which one of them contains the true Superman?
The answer is that none of them do. The definitive Superman does not exist. We're talking about a media franchise that has run more or less consistently for the past 83 years, making it one of the longest-running media franchises in the history of entertainment and Superman, as a character, has the kind of career most actors would kill for. He's played just about every role imaginable: champion of social justice, space-faring adventurer, reluctant Messiah, loving father, awkward teenager with no idea of what to do with his life (I'm no big fan of Smallville, BTW).
Why does a single character has so many interpretations? Well, because Superman has always been whatever the audience needed him to be. When the audience needed him to stand for the poor and the oppressed, he stood for the poor and the oppressed. When the audience needed him to fight alien invasions, he fought alien invasions. When the audience needed him to offer someone, anyone, a helping hand or a shoulder to cry on, he did that as well, regardless of the story. These are all different interpretations and each of them are equal in their legitimacy and you can't say that one Superman is truer than another.
Some of you might ask: "what about the comic books? Superman originated as a comic book character. Wouldn't that mean that the definitive Superman can be found in the comics? Action Comics #1 is considered the most valuable comic book of all time. Does that mean that the Superman in that comic book issue is the definitive Superman?" Well, I don't think so. In fact, Superman's appearance in that comic book supports the idea that he is whatever the world needed him to be.
Action Comics #1 featured a very different Superman from the one modern audiences are used to. He was a very aggressive character who attacked men who brutalized their wives, intimidated criminals with his imposing physique and extraordinary powers and was not afraid to break laws if it served the greater good. In the Silver Age, he was interpreted as a more lighthearted character that had a healthy respect for law and order and was, for all intends and purposes, a superpowered lawman. That was the way the franchise progressed because that's what audiences needed.
Besides, you can't really make the claim that the original Superman from 1938 is the definitive version because no one has ever done that for any character in the history fiction. For example, look at this picture of Sherlock Holmes, also played by Henry Cavill.
Many will tell you that this is the definitive version of Sherlock Holmes, but it's not the original Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never once described the great detective as wearing that costume, and he certainly never pictured Sherlock as looking exactly like Henry. Even if Henry doesn't play the original Sherlock, many people will consider him the definitive Sherlock because they're already used to that version of Sherlock. Ironically, if you try to change that image, even by using things present in the original books, people will freak out because you're not respecting Doyle's vision, by which they mean you're not respecting the vision they're used to.
But even then, Henry doesn't play the definitive version of Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock has been around for longer than Superman and seen far more adaptations in different media, and in each of them, he's been slightly different and each version has its own legitimacy and its own appeal to a particular audience.
If you wanna keep playing the "original version is the definitive version of the character" card, then the one, true version of Godzilla is the nuclear-powered monster from the 1954 movie. What? It was directed by Ishiro Honda, the original creator of Godzilla, and the character himself was portrayed by Haruo Nakajima, the very first actor to ever play Godzilla in any form of entertainment. I don't know who this impostor is, but he clearly isn't Godzilla. By that logic, Godzilla vs Kong can only work if the titular characters are the giant lizard from 1954 and the giant monkey from 1933, respectively.
Have I made my point clear yet? Just because a version of Superman is different from what you're normally used to doesn't mean he isn't Superman. You can't just write off a version of Superman simply because he doesn't cater to your particular tastes as a Superman fan. Superman has and will always have different interpretations, again, each with their own legitimacy and their own appeal to a particular audience. If you don't like a particular version of Superman, that's perfectly fine, but it's unfair to call that version a "fake" or an "impostor", which I was always try to keep an open mind about new Superman stories so I can make informed decisions about them. Perhaps you could do the same.
Well, that's all I have for you this time. Now, it's your turn to tell me what do you think about all of this. As always, this is the start of a dialogue and you have my thanks for participating in it and for taking the time to read what I had to say. Posting my opinions in this website doesn't make them any greater or more valid than yours and I'm just glad to have this privilege and this honor to share my opinions with you. The only thing I ask of you is to deliver your opinions in a polite and civilized manner. We're all Superman fans here, we just see things differently. So leave a comment below, thanks for your time and stay safe out there!