|
Post by foxley on Aug 6, 2023 0:18:48 GMT -5
This was a British model, that would be relatively close.... The filter is where the comic kind of loses reality, aside from the stylization. Gas masks require filters to remove the impurities to make air breathable, in a gas attack. My cousin had a later era one, they got from somewhere (military surplus or something) which had twin hoses that came out of the mask, to a filter cylinder, which would hang behind your neck and shoulders. They even had them for horses! Close enough to work with. Thanks codystarbuck.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Aug 7, 2023 10:04:31 GMT -5
Their Justice League is one of my all-time favorite comics, so I ought to give Hero Squared a try. I'm glad you enjoy it. I loved it at the time, but I'm rereading the run now and I find the constant forced humor grating.
Hawkman is right!
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2023 3:09:08 GMT -5
I don't remember if it's already been asked (also because the answer will probably be "Who knows!") but why, in-universe, Clark didn't give up his anchor job? As a journalist in a newspaper he could manage more or less of his time as he wanted, but as an anchorman he was forced to be present at set times in the studio. I know narratively it could have been a lot of fun for the writers to have Clark come up with new ways to solve this problem, but how did they justify it within the stories? I mean, was it really ethically preferable to Superman to keep his job and brainwash people than to quit?
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Aug 12, 2023 3:34:54 GMT -5
I suspect that when Julius Schwartz took over the Superman titles in '70, he saw it as a way to update the character for a contemporary audience (plus, even then, newspaper readership was plummeting due to the competition from TV) but I don't think either he or writer Denny O'Neil really thought it through. The logistical problems the new job created hurt the series' verisimilitude but once the change was made and all the new characters had been added to the supporting cast Schwartz felt like he was stuck with it. One of John Byrne's smartest choices when he rebooted Big Blue was jettisoning the anchorman schtick and making Clark a columnist, thus affording him (Clark) a great deal more latitude.
Cei-U! I summon my take on it!
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Aug 12, 2023 3:59:36 GMT -5
The " in story" reason was that he was forced to do the TV gig. Morgan Edge didn't give him a choice and Clark went with it. I think I liked him more as an Anchorman.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,043
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 12, 2023 5:45:11 GMT -5
The " in story" reason was that he was forced to do the TV gig. Morgan Edge didn't give him a choice and Clark went with it. I think I liked him more as an Anchorman. Yeah, I always liked the WGBS anchorman era, but I absolutely take Cei-U!'s point that logistically it was problematic. Not least because appearing on the 6 O'Clock news show everyday is not really a great idea for somebody who has a secret identity.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2023 6:37:43 GMT -5
The " in story" reason was that he was forced to do the TV gig. Morgan Edge didn't give him a choice and Clark went with it. I think I liked him more as an Anchorman. Yeah, I remember that. I believe that Clark was the only anchorman int the history who was bullied in taking his job It didn't make a lot of sense beacause: - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
- They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet? The justification given in the 1930s, when at most he could jump over a skyscraper, was excellent: this way he could know if something had happened and intervene immediately. But now, that he has super-hearing and in the Fortress of Solitude a super-computer that warns him if something has escaped him? In all the stories I've read, his work has always been seen as a nuisance, not something can help him. Post-Crisis the explanation is simple, he can do good as a reporter in situations where Superman is powerless. But pre-Crisis Lois Lane had always been the one portrayed as a "serious" reporter. Clark limited himself to making exclusive articles on Superman (whose ethics is dubious...) So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? It would have been nice if that had somehow been made clear to the readers.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 12, 2023 7:18:02 GMT -5
I definitely feel like I've had stories where Clark mentions that he does it to stay close to humanity.
I agree I've always thought the TV era was odd.. and Steve Lombard is such an odd character that I really always felt was simply bad. He's all the bad stereotypes of a 80s guy, and then he ends up getting bullied by Superman on a regular basis that I think is supposed to be funny, but never works for me.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2023 7:22:22 GMT -5
The " in story" reason was that he was forced to do the TV gig. Morgan Edge didn't give him a choice and Clark went with it. I think I liked him more as an Anchorman. Yeah, I always liked the WGBS anchorman era, but I absolutely take Cei-U!'s point that logistically it was problematic. Not least because appearing on the 6 O'Clock news show everyday is not really a great idea for somebody who has a secret identity. And I guess his activity wasn't limited by 6 p.m. at 7 p.m. He wasn't a BBC announcer in the 1930s who just read a script. The news segment had to be prepared and studied.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2023 7:28:16 GMT -5
I definitely feel like I've had stories where Clark mentions that he does it to stay close to humanity. I agree I've always thought the TV era was odd.. and Steve Lombard is such an odd character that I really always felt was simply bad. He's all the bad stereotypes of a 80s guy, and then he ends up getting bullied by Superman on a regular basis that I think is supposed to be funny, but never works for me. Why, don't you think concussions and brain damages are hilarious? 😉
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 12, 2023 16:46:57 GMT -5
The " in story" reason was that he was forced to do the TV gig. Morgan Edge didn't give him a choice and Clark went with it. I think I liked him more as an Anchorman. Yeah, I remember that. I believe that Clark was the only anchorman int the history who was bullied in taking his job It didn't make a lot of sense beacause: - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
- They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet? The justification given in the 1930s, when at most he could jump over a skyscraper, was excellent: this way he could know if something had happened and intervene immediately. But now, that he has super-hearing and in the Fortress of Solitude a super-computer that warns him if something has escaped him? In all the stories I've read, his work has always been seen as a nuisance, not something can help him. Post-Crisis the explanation is simple, he can do good as a reporter in situations where Superman is powerless. But pre-Crisis Lois Lane had always been the one portrayed as a "serious" reporter. Clark limited himself to making exclusive articles on Superman (whose ethics is dubious...) So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? It would have been nice if that had somehow been made clear to the readers. Let's take these in order. - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
At the time, the average TV anchorman was generally somewhat bland. The focus was more on "trustworthy and reliable" than "entertaining to watch." Superman writer Elliot Maggin used the term "inoffensively handsome" to refer to Kent, which is what TV news usually wanted then.
Think "personable, not personality." In the 80s, anchors such as Jerry Springer would bring in a more personality-based style and begin offering commentary on the news, even being billed as controversial, but that was long after the comic story here. - They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
The writers knew exactly how the job market worked then, and a lot of the time it worked like that. The Boss says "You're doing this now" and that's how it was. It was just assumed that things like salary adjustments and the like would be worked out as they went along.
Some Superman stories even showed this, not explicitly but it could be inferred. Maggin showed that Kent was the only person at the Planet/WGBS who had a window in his office, something that Kent insisted on (it faced a dingy back alley, no one knew why Clark would want a window facing that, but it made flying off as Superman much easier).
And the second Superman/Spider-Man story had this scene -
Clearly, Clark wrangled some perks out of the deal. And of course, all his perks worked to help him as Superman.
The reason I say "they knew exactly how it worked" is because people at DC Comics - including the editor of this very story, Julius Schwartz - often ran things in a similar manner.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
For one, arguing the issue would draw too much attention to Clark. Arguing would also go against his "meek and mild" persona that he guarded very carefully. There were times and places where an employee could speak up, but there were also times when The Boss gave a directive and you knew to just follow it. When The Boss ORDERS you to do something, publicly, in front of the entire staff, you don't challenge him. Maybe talk to him privately later, but not then and there. I would also imagine Superman thought of it like this - "Ok, I don't have an excuse to get out of it right now. So I'll try it for now while I look for one. If the gig works, it works, and if not I'll come up with something to get out of it." And since he managed to successfully pull it off, he probably figured he could keep pulling it off. Which he did. But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet?...So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? Yep. As Wildfire2099 pointed out, it helped Superman keep a connection with humanity. The Superman novels by Elliot Maggin that I mentioned above go into explicit detail about this, especially the second novel, Miracle Monday. I mean, it really goes into detail about it. Devastatingly so. Also, to add to what Cei-U wrote above, Clark Kent was indeed a TV newsman until the 1986 revamp. But in Action Comics #493, this happened - From here on out, Clark Kent divided his time between WGBS and the Daily Planet, which allowed the writers to use whichever setting they wanted for their story that month. This issue was released in December 1978, coinciding with the Superman movie. Pretty sure it was meant to bring the comics version closer to the movie version, which went with the traditional "Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet," since that's how he was viewed in the public consciousness. The change back also allowed this awesome story to happen several years later. Writer Marty Pasko got some mileage out of the "TV anchor" angle during his time on the series, which makes sense since Pasko did work in television. He wrote some Supergirl stories for the Superman Family title in the early 80s that made even more use of his real-life television experience. And on a side note about "Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability"... Clark Kent was rarely, if ever, shown to be "not likeable" by most of the other people at the Planet or WGBS. The other staffers were constantly frustrated by his timidness, ever-queasy stomach, et cetera, but they liked him, even tried to help him with those issues from time to time. Even the "Smiling Cobra" himself. Morgan Edge, tried to help Clark in Action Comics #501, written by Cary Bates. Edge saw that Kent was confident and self-assured on the air (he had to be, to keep his job, and Superman needed Clark to keep his job), but off the air was a timid nobody. Edge wanted to help Clark be more confident, and recruited a psychologist to assist. Even Steve Lombard, for all his jerkishness, didn't actually dislike Clark. He saw Clark as weak (and I can't entirely fault Lombard for this, since Superman wanted people to think this), and since Lombard had a prankster nature he often chose Clark as a target, but that's partly because he knew Clark would never fight back. But he never set out to actually hurt him or cause him real problems. He even tried to protect Clark a time or two in dangerous situations. Lombard often seemed more bothered by the fact that Clark acted like such a wimp, rather than bothered by Clark himself.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Aug 12, 2023 17:02:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember that. I believe that Clark was the only anchorman int the history who was bullied in taking his job It didn't make a lot of sense beacause: - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
- They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet? The justification given in the 1930s, when at most he could jump over a skyscraper, was excellent: this way he could know if something had happened and intervene immediately. But now, that he has super-hearing and in the Fortress of Solitude a super-computer that warns him if something has escaped him? In all the stories I've read, his work has always been seen as a nuisance, not something can help him. Post-Crisis the explanation is simple, he can do good as a reporter in situations where Superman is powerless. But pre-Crisis Lois Lane had always been the one portrayed as a "serious" reporter. Clark limited himself to making exclusive articles on Superman (whose ethics is dubious...) So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? It would have been nice if that had somehow been made clear to the readers. Let's take these in order. - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
At the time, the average TV anchorman was generally somewhat bland. The focus was more on "trustworthy and reliable" than "entertaining to watch." Superman writer Elliot Maggin used the term "inoffensively handsome" to refer to Kent, which is what TV news usually wanted then.
Think "personable, not personality." In the 80s, anchors such as Jerry Springer would bring in a more personality-based style and begin offering commentary on the news, even being billed as controversial, but that was long after the comic story here. - They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
The writers knew exactly how the job market worked then, and a lot of the time it worked like that. The Boss says "You're doing this now" and that's how it was. It was just assumed that things like salary adjustments and the like would be worked out as they went along.
Some Superman stories even showed this, not explicitly but it could be inferred. Maggin showed that Kent was the only person at the Planet/WGBS who had a window in his office, something that Kent insisted on (it faced a dingy back alley, no one knew why Clark would want a window facing that, but it made flying off as Superman much easier).
And the second Superman/Spider-Man story had this scene -
Clearly, Clark wrangled some perks out of the deal. And of course, all his perks worked to help him as Superman.
The reason I say "they knew exactly how it worked" is because people at DC Comics - including the editor of this very story, Julius Schwartz - often ran things in a similar manner.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
For one, arguing the issue would draw too much attention to Clark. Arguing would also go against his "meek and mild" persona that he guarded very carefully. There were times and places where an employee could speak up, but there were also times when The Boss gave a directive and you knew to just follow it. When The Boss ORDERS you to do something, publicly, in front of the entire staff, you don't challenge him. Maybe talk to him privately later, but not then and there. I would also imagine Superman thought of it like this - "Ok, I don't have an excuse to get out of it right now. So I'll try it for now while I look for one. If the gig works, it works, and if not I'll come up with something to get out of it." And since he managed to successfully pull it off, he probably figured he could keep pulling it off. Which he did. But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet?...So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? Yep. As Wildfire2099 pointed out, it helped Superman keep a connection with humanity. The Superman novels by Elliot Maggin that I mentioned above go into explicit detail about this, especially the second novel, Miracle Monday. I mean, it really goes into detail about it. Devastatingly so. Also, to add to what Cei-U wrote above, Clark Kent was indeed a TV newsman until the 1986 revamp. But in Action Comics #493, this happened - From here on out, Clark Kent divided his time between WGBS and the Daily Planet, which allowed the writers to use whichever setting they wanted for their story that month. This issue was released in December 1978, coinciding with the Superman movie. Pretty sure it was meant to bring the comics version closer to the movie version, which went with the traditional "Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet," since that's how he was viewed in the public consciousness. The change back also allowed this awesome story to happen several years later. Writer Marty Pasko got some mileage out of the "TV anchor" angle during his time on the series, which makes sense since Pasko did work in television. He wrote some Supergirl stories for the Superman Family title in the early 80s that made even more use of his real-life television experience. And on a side note about "Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability"... Clark Kent was rarely, if ever, shown to be "not likeable" by most of the other people at the Planet or WGBS. The other staffers were constantly frustrated by his timidness, ever-queasy stomach, et cetera, but they liked him, even tried to help him with those issues from time to time. Even the "Smiling Cobra" himself. Morgan Edge, tried to help Clark in Action Comics #501, written by Cary Bates. Edge saw that Kent was confident and self-assured on the air (he had to be, to keep his job, and Superman needed Clark to keep his job), but off the air was a timid nobody. Edge wanted to help Clark be more confident, and recruited a psychologist to assist. Even Steve Lombard, for all his jerkishness, didn't actually dislike Clark. He saw Clark as weak (and I can't entirely fault Lombard for this, since Superman wanted people to think this), and since Lombard had a prankster nature he often chose Clark as a target, but that's partly because he knew Clark would never fight back. But he never set out to actually hurt him or cause him real problems. He even tried to protect Clark a time or two in dangerous situations. Lombard often seemed more bothered by the fact that Clark acted like such a wimp, rather than bothered by Clark himself. Thank you for your extensive and comprehensive response!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 12, 2023 17:47:28 GMT -5
I definitely feel like I've had stories where Clark mentions that he does it to stay close to humanity. I agree I've always thought the TV era was odd.. and Steve Lombard is such an odd character that I really always felt was simply bad. He's all the bad stereotypes of a 80s guy, and then he ends up getting bullied by Superman on a regular basis that I think is supposed to be funny, but never works for me. Why, don't you think concussions and brain damages are hilarious? 😉 90 years of Looney Tunes says, "Yes!"
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,043
|
Post by Confessor on Aug 13, 2023 2:56:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I remember that. I believe that Clark was the only anchorman int the history who was bullied in taking his job It didn't make a lot of sense beacause: - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
- They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet? The justification given in the 1930s, when at most he could jump over a skyscraper, was excellent: this way he could know if something had happened and intervene immediately. But now, that he has super-hearing and in the Fortress of Solitude a super-computer that warns him if something has escaped him? In all the stories I've read, his work has always been seen as a nuisance, not something can help him. Post-Crisis the explanation is simple, he can do good as a reporter in situations where Superman is powerless. But pre-Crisis Lois Lane had always been the one portrayed as a "serious" reporter. Clark limited himself to making exclusive articles on Superman (whose ethics is dubious...) So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? It would have been nice if that had somehow been made clear to the readers. Let's take these in order. - Up until this point Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability. Why would anyone want to have him as an anchorman?
At the time, the average TV anchorman was generally somewhat bland. The focus was more on "trustworthy and reliable" than "entertaining to watch." Superman writer Elliot Maggin used the term "inoffensively handsome" to refer to Kent, which is what TV news usually wanted then.
Think "personable, not personality." In the 80s, anchors such as Jerry Springer would bring in a more personality-based style and begin offering commentary on the news, even being billed as controversial, but that was long after the comic story here. - They don't even talk about money for a moment. Now Clark does a completely different job: will he get paid more? Less? I understand that he is salaried and not a freelancer like Peter Parker, so he must have signed a contract specifying his duties when he was hired at the Daily Planet, right? One suspects that the writers have no idea how the job market works outside the world of comics.
The writers knew exactly how the job market worked then, and a lot of the time it worked like that. The Boss says "You're doing this now" and that's how it was. It was just assumed that things like salary adjustments and the like would be worked out as they went along.
Some Superman stories even showed this, not explicitly but it could be inferred. Maggin showed that Kent was the only person at the Planet/WGBS who had a window in his office, something that Kent insisted on (it faced a dingy back alley, no one knew why Clark would want a window facing that, but it made flying off as Superman much easier).
And the second Superman/Spider-Man story had this scene -
Clearly, Clark wrangled some perks out of the deal. And of course, all his perks worked to help him as Superman.
The reason I say "they knew exactly how it worked" is because people at DC Comics - including the editor of this very story, Julius Schwartz - often ran things in a similar manner.
- Why does Clark accept? (Yes I know, he accepts because the writers say so). But in-universe, why does he do it? It interferes with his duties as Superman, so as a character he should have some justification. And yet nothing.
For one, arguing the issue would draw too much attention to Clark. Arguing would also go against his "meek and mild" persona that he guarded very carefully. There were times and places where an employee could speak up, but there were also times when The Boss gave a directive and you knew to just follow it. When The Boss ORDERS you to do something, publicly, in front of the entire staff, you don't challenge him. Maybe talk to him privately later, but not then and there. I would also imagine Superman thought of it like this - "Ok, I don't have an excuse to get out of it right now. So I'll try it for now while I look for one. If the gig works, it works, and if not I'll come up with something to get out of it." And since he managed to successfully pull it off, he probably figured he could keep pulling it off. Which he did. But above all, why is he still working at the Daily Planet?...So why does it stay there? Because he likes his colleagues? Because if he didn't do it, would he get bored? To remain "human"? Yep. As Wildfire2099 pointed out, it helped Superman keep a connection with humanity. The Superman novels by Elliot Maggin that I mentioned above go into explicit detail about this, especially the second novel, Miracle Monday. I mean, it really goes into detail about it. Devastatingly so. Also, to add to what Cei-U wrote above, Clark Kent was indeed a TV newsman until the 1986 revamp. But in Action Comics #493, this happened - From here on out, Clark Kent divided his time between WGBS and the Daily Planet, which allowed the writers to use whichever setting they wanted for their story that month. This issue was released in December 1978, coinciding with the Superman movie. Pretty sure it was meant to bring the comics version closer to the movie version, which went with the traditional "Clark Kent, mild-mannered reporter for the Daily Planet," since that's how he was viewed in the public consciousness. The change back also allowed this awesome story to happen several years later. Writer Marty Pasko got some mileage out of the "TV anchor" angle during his time on the series, which makes sense since Pasko did work in television. He wrote some Supergirl stories for the Superman Family title in the early 80s that made even more use of his real-life television experience. And on a side note about "Clark had been described as having the same charm and stage presence as a table lamp, but not the same likability"... Clark Kent was rarely, if ever, shown to be "not likeable" by most of the other people at the Planet or WGBS. The other staffers were constantly frustrated by his timidness, ever-queasy stomach, et cetera, but they liked him, even tried to help him with those issues from time to time. Even the "Smiling Cobra" himself. Morgan Edge, tried to help Clark in Action Comics #501, written by Cary Bates. Edge saw that Kent was confident and self-assured on the air (he had to be, to keep his job, and Superman needed Clark to keep his job), but off the air was a timid nobody. Edge wanted to help Clark be more confident, and recruited a psychologist to assist. Even Steve Lombard, for all his jerkishness, didn't actually dislike Clark. He saw Clark as weak (and I can't entirely fault Lombard for this, since Superman wanted people to think this), and since Lombard had a prankster nature he often chose Clark as a target, but that's partly because he knew Clark would never fight back. But he never set out to actually hurt him or cause him real problems. He even tried to protect Clark a time or two in dangerous situations. Lombard often seemed more bothered by the fact that Clark acted like such a wimp, rather than bothered by Clark himself. I've nothing to add other than, "great post, Chris." I really enjoyed reading that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Aug 13, 2023 3:14:39 GMT -5
Thanks. Glad you guys liked it.
|
|