Tom Brevoort on Superman

[Jon Clark]

Having an unmarried Superman and having the parents dead doesn't do much to change the character overall. Quite frankly the whole Lois trying to figure out who Superman is and the whole Clark-Lois-Superman triangle was played for all it was worth and had gotten incredibly boring and stale. Yes, it works better in movies or new series where your exploring the beginnings of the characters relationships but for the comics that have been around for many decades it lost it's strength many years ago. Having the parents around is nice for Clark to have to back and talk about his doubts and fears and to just get some advice from. It doesn't hurt the character in any way to have his parents alive because he's not Batman where his parents death tie into him becoming a hero or affect the type of hero he becomes.

I agree with the Lois point, but the losing at least one of the Kents early on has some value. Look at the scene in the 1978 movie. Clark standing there and realizing that in spite of being the most powerful being on the planet he still has things beyond his control. It gives some weight to the character that Byrne's take lacked with his popular football hero Clark who never faced a problem in his life.

With the whole Kal-El is the "real" person the only way that works or makes sense is if you handle it like in the movie where Jor-El teaches him all about Kryptonian ways and prepares him to be Superman after spending months(?) in the Fortress being schooled. In the comics and in most tellings of the Superman tale it's the Kents who shape and form what Clark becomes and Clark knows next to nothing about Krypton or his Kryptionian heritage.

I think you are taking the "Kal-El" part too literally. I think the term was being used the same way "Smallville Clark" is used, just a way to define something that isn't the superhero face or the persona used to throw people off track. The idea that Clark acts differently around the Kents, Lois, the JLA; etc than he does in the Daily Planet bullpen or when dealing with the public as Superman.

[Mat001]

With the whole Kal-El is the "real" person the only way that works or makes sense is if you handle it like in the movie where Jor-El teaches him all about Kryptonian ways and prepares him to be Superman after spending months(?) in the Fortress being schooled. In the comics and in most tellings of the Superman tale it's the Kents who shape and form what Clark becomes and Clark knows next to nothing about Krypton or his Kryptionian heritage.

Even in the Superman films, he's still Clark Kent at his heart. Not Kal-El. Sure in the Lester footage Clark is refered to as a disguise, but that's how he's presented to the world. When Donner did the de-powering sequence, that is the only time he is even remotely Kal-El. But he's still both in that moment. He's dressed as Clark, but speaking as Superman. Afterwards, he's just Clark Kent until he returns to the Fortress. In Donner's ending, the Fortress is destroyed leaving only Superman and Clark Kent. The destruction of the Fortress is symbolic of Clark's severing the ties to Krypton, thus ending both Jor-El and Kal-El in one fell swoop. In the third film, he is every bit Clark Kent when he goes back to Smallville. Even when his bumbling is limited to a few scenes. By the fourth film, the balance is perfect as he finally states that he is no longer a visitor. He cannot turn his back on the people of Earth, becauses they refuse to stop fighting on their own. He's too much a part of them to just up and leave. SR took a different path where Clark wants to see if Jor-El was wrong, but finds that he wasn't. He struggles with the fact that part of him feels human, but also knows that he is not. But in that film, he's not Kal-El. Even when he hears Jor-El talk to him as such.

Really, the only way "Kal-El as a real person works", is if he was raised on Krypton and came to Earth as a teen or an adult. In the real world we know for a fact that people who find out that they are adopted don't automatically become a different person. Or even take on their original birth name, if their name was changed. Who they are growing up is who they are now. Byrne's assertion makes the most sense. Robinson wrote that despite growing up and seeing all these historical texts and holograms about Krypton, he still feels like an outsider. He still feels human. He's not Thor who has been depicted as two beings living in one body. He's not schizo like the Sentry. He's not a total alien like Gladiator who has no dual identity. He's not Mister Majestic.

[godzilla2099]

But then you get Superman so powerful that NOTHING can actully be considered a threat to him with out being written so ridiculus that it just ruins the story. I always hated planet pushing Superman back before Crisis and thought it was just dumb. That the same reason I think Sentry over at Marvel was the biggest mary sue plot device ever created. If nothing is actully a threat to the hero then whats the point?

Look at Batman. With "prep time" there are people who believe nobody can beat him. I don't remember Batman being used as a tool or a punching bag to boost other people up.

Also check out Hulk, Thor and Surfer. They still have good stories. Heck, even He-Man was fun to read.

It's not just 'threats' that makes Superman's Stories interesting, but the actual challenges he faces.

For Me, Superman's Books were fun. They took me away from all this darkness and grim crap. I loved reading about the most powerful hero that no bad guy wanted to get in the way of. I barely see him getting any respect anymore

[Jon Clark]

Even in the Superman films, he's still Clark Kent at his heart. Not Kal-El. Sure in the Lester footage Clark is refered to as a disguise, but that's how he's presented to the world. When Donner did the de-powering sequence, that is the only time he is even remotely Kal-El. But he's still both in that moment. He's dressed as Clark, but speaking as Superman. Afterwards, he's just Clark Kent until he returns to the Fortress. In Donner's ending, the Fortress is destroyed leaving only Superman and Clark Kent. The destruction of the Fortress is symbolic of Clark's severing the ties to Krypton, thus ending both Jor-El and Kal-El in one fell swoop. In the third film, he is every bit Clark Kent when he goes back to Smallville. Even when his bumbling is limited to a few scenes. By the fourth film, the balance is perfect as he finally states that he is no longer a visitor. He cannot turn his back on the people of Earth, becauses they refuse to stop fighting on their own. He's too much a part of them to just up and leave. SR took a different path where Clark wants to see if Jor-El was wrong, but finds that he wasn't. He struggles with the fact that part of him feels human, but also knows that he is not. But in that film, he's not Kal-El. Even when he hears Jor-El talk to him as such.

Really, the only way "Kal-El as a real person works", is if he was raised on Krypton and came to Earth as a teen or an adult. In the real world we know for a fact that people who find out that they are adopted don't automatically become a different person. Or even take on their original birth name, if their name was changed. Who they are growing up is who they are now. Byrne's assertion makes the most sense. Robinson wrote that despite growing up and seeing all these historical texts and holograms about Krypton, he still feels like an outsider. He still feels human. He's not Thor who has been depicted as two beings living in one body. He's not schizo like the Sentry. He's not a total alien like Gladiator who has no dual identity. He's not Mister Majestic.

I believe the way the "Kal-El" bit works is:
Hypothetically- Lois is investing Lexcorp and is getting close to something. Lex has an underling rough her up.

Clark: Even leaving aside the clutz take, can't beat up the underling without blowing the mild-mannered rep. At best he can put up a valiant but losing fight hoping no one notices he isn't getting bruised.

Superman: Can't be seen as playing favorites or being vindictive. Has to simply arrest the underling who hurt his wife.

Kal-El: Internally we see that what Superman wants to do is cripple this guy- but is forced to hold back both in his Clark guise and his Superman guise.

[stk]

Even in the Superman films, he's still Clark Kent at his heart. Not Kal-El.

I think you are completely wrong about that.

[RDMacQ]

Wow. Brevoort's ideas are depressing. Both Kents dead. The marriage gone. I supposed he'd want to off Conner and Kara as well? That way Clark could be really isolated. Maybe he's a big fan of Doctor Who or something, and would like to see Supes in the role of Lonely God. Yeah, like that didn't get old after a while (and that's coming from a huge fan of the RTD era).

Brevoort's ideas just don't work, not unless the whole DC universe was rebooted and many characters removed from existence. Even if Lois and the marriage was magically removed, Superman has friends who understand his situation. Clark isn't the only alien living on Earth. He's hardly the only character with near god-like abilities. Many of the heroes cope with secret identities. Many to most of them have tragic pasts, many of which are far more traumatic than Clark's. As things stand now, how much of an outsider can he realistically be portrayed?

Frankly, the idea of a Superman who is alienated from humanity is kind of scary. Admittedly, Irredeemable has made this fresh in my mind, but it certainly occurred to me even as a kid that Superman was pretty much the most dangerous character in comics. You don't want a guy like that to feel apart from humanity. Clark was raised by human parents. It makes no sense that "Kal-El" is the "real" Clark. He may have the power of a god thanks to his Kryptonian genes, but his morality and values were inspired by his human parents. Isn't that the point of him?

What the hell is wrong with having a hero who is in love with his wife? Are there really that many stories about a single Clark that could be told without ending up in the same place we already are? Is anyone really dying for a return to the days when Lois didn't know the truth about Clark/Superman? Really? The Superman-Lois-Clark "triangle" had it's time. It's antiquated, it's over, and good riddance. Superheroes with secret identities should not get seriously involved with people who don't know the truth about them. It's creepy.

I think Brevoort just prefers the era he approached the character. You're always going to gravitate to the status quo that got you hooked on a franchise, or attracted you to the character. However, I think the problem with that sort of thinking- of constantly trying to undo previous events to "fix" the book- is sort of what is wrong with comics these days. The back and forth on previous decisions don't really give a good sense of stability for the readers. As someone else pointed out, you undo the Superman marriage, why should readers care about their relationship from this point on since we know it won't go anywhere? I think that sometimes creators are more romanced by the idea of a certain status quo than the actual nuts and bolts of having that status quo present and actually using it to its full potential.

Besides, to paraphrase Alan Moore- there are so many comics on the stands these days that DON'T portray a happy, married couple, certainly there can be some room for one comic that does.

[RDMacQ]

I don't know what Brevoort is thinking. Look at the last time DC tried to do an unmarried version of Superman: ALL-STAR SUPERMAN. What a disaster that was. That series only received... both tremendous acclaim and sales. Hey, waitaminute.

Yes, and by the end of the first issue the Clark/ Lois/ Superman love triangle was completely done away with. That might tell you something as well.

[nightwing45]

Yes, and by the end of the first issue the Clark/ Lois/ Superman love triangle was completely done away with. That might tell you something as well.

Of course, Morrison was one of the brain dead-I mean brain trust who wanted to ret-con punch Superman into a dufus bachelor who is weak kneed and cowardly, can't do his job right, and fails at life.

I can imagine all the kids looking at that version of Superman. You know what the kids would say? Not COOL! They'd say LOSER!

[Dubbilex]

Writers should look for something that will help, not just "not hurt."

See, it's one thing to say a single Superman is an inferior set-up. It's another to say it's an awful set-up that can only produce creatively bankrupt stories and inevitably renders the book a disaster, which is the conclusion a bunch of folks here are drawing. For all everyone here knows, Brevoort has a bunch of stories of the caliber of ALL STAR SUPERMAN (a story that couldn't have been told with a married Superman) in mind when he's talking about the marriage holding back the character.

Besides, the All Star Superman already told Lois is secret so the Clark-Lois relationship was closer to the marriage in terms of the kind of stories you can tell than the love triangle.

He told her, but the more important detail is that she never believes him. As a result, their relationship ends up little different than before he told her. I'd say that makes the series closer in spirit to a single Superman. ALL STAR kept the fundamental strength of single Superman: the way it emphasizes the character's isolation.

[Will.S]

Tom's whole anti-marriage stance on Superman is just something I vehemently disagree with as I don't see the advantage in making him single one way or another. I also don't care for the whole lonely Kryptonian thing, the marriage basically strengthens his character and makes him less mopey as Tom seems to think works.

He may be the last of his kind but as people have already stated he already has his own family on earth (Kara, Kon-El, Krypto, Kents) as well as a lot of fellow superheroes who he can hang out with.

[jdviant]

It certainly didn't hurt it. And it proves there are still great stories that can be told about a single Superman.

What I don't get is that if DC is perfectly happy producing stories with a single Clark - a decade or so after the marriage - then why would they need a single Superman at all? Don't comics get to jump all over the place in the stories they want to tell anyway?

[Hullababy]

But then you get Superman so powerful that NOTHING can actully be considered a threat to him with out being written so ridiculus that it just ruins the story. I always hated planet pushing Superman back before Crisis and thought it was just dumb. That the same reason I think Sentry over at Marvel was the biggest mary sue plot device ever created. If nothing is actully a threat to the hero then whats the point?

Just because Superman is powerful doesn't necessarily mean that NOTHING should be able to hurt him. It just means you have to come up with more imaginative threats and a writer who is writing Superman should be able to do that. Just look at All Star or Kingdom Come. Both feature a very powerful Superman and are considered two of the best Superman stories out there.

[Alex Dragon]

I agree with the Lois point, but the losing at least one of the Kents early on has some value. Look at the scene in the 1978 movie. Clark standing there and realizing that in spite of being the most powerful being on the planet he still has things beyond his control. It gives some weight to the character that Byrne's take lacked with his popular football hero Clark who never faced a problem in his life.

Yeah, but when it happened in the comics it only had a dramatic effect for a about a couple of issues. A great character that could've been used in many many more stories and could've been important in Clark's life as a character and a story element gone for the sake of basically a gimmick. In the movie it's understandable to have Pa kent die to supply a shortcut to drama because it's a 2 hour story. In the comics the stories go on and on and it wasn't worth it to kill Pa kent off for a payoff that won't last more than a few issues when the character would've served the books better in the long haul if he were alive.

I think you are taking the "Kal-El" part too literally. I think the term was being used the same way "Smallville Clark" is used, just a way to define something that isn't the superhero face or the persona used to throw people off track. The idea that Clark acts differently around the Kents, Lois, the JLA; etc than he does in the Daily Planet bullpen or when dealing with the public as Superman.

I understand what Tom B. was trying to say. But what he says only makes sense if we're talking about a Kal who is really playing a part as Clark Kent. I think back in the days of Clark pretending to be the bumbling reporter then "Kal" is the real person but last I read the Superman books Clark isn't that different around Lois or his parents than he is around friends/co-workers at the Planet other than he doesn't talk about being Superman. Or it doesn't make sense unless Clark had lots of exposure to his Kyrptonian heritage and decided to embrace it. Otherwise, Clark is basically the kid from Smallville who grew up and moved to Metropolis and puts on a disguise to help people when they need it. Clark isn't an "act" that "Kal" puts on because there's no real reason for him to be.

[Justin D.]

This has happened a bit recently, so I'm calling it out here. Think of this when you want to create new threads.

Put some thought into it. Do not just give a topic and then say "Discuss" or "Why". Also, do not provide only a link to somewhere else or copy/paste an entire article from elsewhere and nothing else as the whole post. If you want to talk about something, talk about it. Put some effort into it and make it a springboard for future conversation.

[carabas]

Just because Superman is powerful doesn't necessarily mean that NOTHING should be able to hurt him. It just means you have to come up with more imaginative threats and a writer who is writing Superman should be able to do that. Just look at All Star or Kingdom Come. Both feature a very powerful Superman and are considered two of the best Superman stories out there.

Those are isolated, finite stories that are not even part of continuity, and done by some of the best writers in American comics.

Try that kind of Superman in the regular books, and the eventual writer drain and the monthly grind, the need for two to three Superman stories per month, any Superman stories, is going to make this unworkable in the long run. This is a big part of why they did Crisis On Infinite Earths in the first place: one of the main goals was to get a more workable Superman.