|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Jan 3, 2024 15:07:23 GMT -5
I truly believe that Pre-Crisis superman was technically lying about 80% of the time. He is protecting them from sadistic murder at the hands of his enemies. But they're already in the exact same danger as publicly known friends of Superman, so whats the diff? It's not like they're gonna call a press conference and announce that Superman told them his true identity (well, maybe Lois...).
Cei-U! I summon the BS rationale!
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Jan 3, 2024 22:54:29 GMT -5
Just because someone says "I never lie" does not mean that they may not be, in fact, lying. Such is the duplicitous nature of falsehoods. I'm trying to remember if in the movie Lois (or anyone) asks Superman if he's Clark. Or if anyone even suspects that Superman has another identity. Why would thay? Superman doesn't lie. Clark Kent does. But not Superman. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 4, 2024 5:14:35 GMT -5
He is protecting them from sadistic murder at the hands of his enemies. But they're already in the exact same danger as publicly known friends of Superman, so whats the diff? It's not like they're gonna call a press conference and announce that Superman told them his true identity (well, maybe Lois...).
Cei-U! I summon the BS rationale!
Maybe, but if someone wanted to hurt me they would assault my wife , not my co-worker. It's not exactly the same. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 5:15:56 GMT -5
He is protecting them from sadistic murder at the hands of his enemies. But they're already in the exact same danger as publicly known friends of Superman, so whats the diff? It's not like they're gonna call a press conference and announce that Superman told them his true identity (well, maybe Lois...).
Cei-U! I summon the BS rationale!
How many times pre-crisis Luthor tried to kill/kidnap Lois because she was "Superman's girlfriend"? I don't know how knowing his secret identity could have put her in more danger than that |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jan 4, 2024 5:22:52 GMT -5
Ultimately, it's a comic universe where certain conceits have to exist. If you read Alan Moores, Miracle man or his Supreme runs, he allows the bad guys to kill and maim supporting characters and it's ugly. Not something that creates longevity for a comic magazine. Use the Slam_Bradley rule and just treat it as an unrealistic funny book. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 5:50:40 GMT -5
Use the Slam_Bradley rule and just treat it as an unrealistic funny book. I don't... completely agree. Obviously for the sake of enjoyment I can accept super-strong aliens shooting laser beams from their eyes or the fact that a simple pair of glasses are a perfect disguise. Otherwise the super-hero genre wouldn't exist. On the other hand, I find it harder to accept the obvious hypocrisy of someone who claims to fight for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" and then lies full-time to those he considers his friends. In other words, I calmly accept that physics is different from ours and that magic exists, but not that the characters follow their own personal ethics which have nothing to do with those of our world. Otherwise, how do we recognize the good guys and the bad guys in comics if they don't commit actions that we consider wrong from our point of view as readers? What is right and wrong is simply decided by the protagonist and we must trust him, even if it goes against our principles? |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 6:05:06 GMT -5
You always make a compelling case, but I believe that what you describe is something that I add to my suspension of disbelief. Everyone’s mileage varies, of course.
I mean, if I thought about it deeply, there’s a lack of ethics (maybe) in Peter Parker taking photos of himself as Spider-Man. In the real world, if a photographer wore a mask, disrupted a mugging and then sold a photo of it, and the editor found out who was behind the mask, there could be possibly legal action, I don’t know.
If I were to think deeply about Superman’s secret identity, would he be any different from an agent for, say, MI5 or MI6? I’d wager that agents for any intelligence agency might be able to tell a spouse or close family member what they do, but not everybody. I’d wager that maybe they have a cover story for when they meet friends, or are just vague (“I work for the government…”). If such a system exists, it’d be about protecting loved ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 6:58:25 GMT -5
If I were to think deeply about Superman’s secret identity, would he be any different from an agent for, say, MI5 or MI6? I’d wager that agents for any intelligence agency might be able to tell a spouse or close family member what they do, but not everybody. I’d wager that maybe they have a cover story for when they meet friends, or are just vague (“I work for the government…”). If such a system exists, it’d be about protecting loved ones. You're not the first to make this comparison, but it's never completely convinced me. Superman is not a secret agent working undercover, he is someone who aspires to be (voluntarily or not) a role model for everyone. I can justify an MI6 operative lying, I mean, it's literally in his job description. A little less someone whose one of his powers should be super ethics. The other justification of "protecting loved ones" in the case of Pre-Crisis Superman doesn't make much sense, because Superman and Clark Kent's loved ones coincide perfectly!!! How many times have the Daily Planet and the people who work there been put in danger by their proximity to the Man of Steel? It's interesting how Superman has no problem saying he's not Clark Kent, but can't help but say, "Yeah, yeah, I'm really good friends with the people at the Planet, Lois Lane is my girlfriend, Jimmy Olsen is my best pal, I would be devastated if something happened to them, or if some super-powered enemy of mine took revenge on perfectly normal human beings who could easily be found in a workplace open to the public." If Superman wanted to both keep his identity a secret and keep his friends safe, he should have simply avoided letting the world know that he was chummy with them. |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 7:51:55 GMT -5
I do appreciate your logic, and as I read through the Romita Spidey stories, I see what you mean: Spidey is keeping his distance, he’s not going around telling people he’s pals with various people. He even seems to want to keep his comings and goings with Captain Stacy as secret as possible, probably because he knows that making a big deal of his friendship/alliance with Stacy would probably result in unwanted attention to both the captain and Gwen.
We saw what happened with Byrne’s Superman when Luthor had his cronies kidnap and beat up Lana Lang. Now, that wasn’t to be blamed on Kent, Luthor had simply got curious about an implied connection between Kent and Superman, and had targeted Kent’s family and Lana. That can’t be helped. But I can see your logic about why Superman, much like Spidey, might want to keep certain friendships secret.
I think about how Luthor got Zod to kidnap Lois Lane in Superman II. Yet in Superman III, Ross Webster doesn’t attempt to harm any associate of Superman’s (I know Lois is mostly absent in that film) because movie Superman isn’t making a big deal of his friendships; Reeve’s Superman seemed to have more of a relationship with the Daily Planet as an institution rather than individuals.
|
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 8:06:03 GMT -5
Perhaps I missed something, but why in the 78 movie Luthor was sure that Kryptonite was harmful to Superman? And how did he know that particular green rock came from the same planet of the Man of Steel? People, don't ever, ever ask comics-related question to ChatGPT  WHAT THE HECK IS IT TALKING ABOUT???  I don't know, it's conflating some stories from comics with the movie??? |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 8:10:00 GMT -5
AI is no good for that, my friend. I’ve asked AI search engines some questions (usually wrestling or comics, to clarify history) and they are very good at conflating things. Unless there’s a Director’s Cut of Superman, which features Emil Hamilton (wonder who played him?).  |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 8:26:15 GMT -5
I do appreciate your logic, and as I read through the Romita Spidey stories, I see what you mean: Spidey is keeping his distance, he’s not going around telling people he’s pals with various people. He even seems to want to keep his comings and goings with Captain Stacy as secret as possible, probably because he knows that making a big deal of his friendship/alliance with Stacy would probably result in unwanted attention to both the captain and Gwen. And it's perfectly understandable that he doesn't want to tell Aunt May the truth. I mean, at least in the Silver Age she was always portrayed as one step away from death and with a pathological hatred towards Spider-Man. What is the justification for not telling the truth to Lois Lane, an intelligent woman, capable of taking care of herself and who already has strong feelings towards Superman (which has already put her in danger several times)? The IRL justification is clear, the Clark Kent-Lois Lane-Superman triangle was so ingrained in the collective imagination they didn't even think about changing this. The problem is that while this dynamic could work perfectly in the more lighthearted Silver Age, it became harder to justify in the more (relatively) realistic Bronze Age. I don't remember a single story from this period where he credibly rationalizes why he kept the secret from her. This is the only scene (that I can remember) where he tries to give something of a believable explanation (And his interlocutor doesn't seem very convinced).   I can understand how he sees being Superman as a full-time job that leaves him no time for romantic commitments. So why the hell did he keep "dating" Lois Lane? (I use the word “dating” for what they did because the only alternative would be “friends with benefits”). |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 8:29:21 GMT -5
AI is no good for that, my friend. I’ve asked AI search engines some questions (usually wrestling or comics, to clarify history) and they are very good at conflating things. Unless there’s a Director’s Cut of Superman, which features Emil Hamilton (wonder who played him?). I couldn't resist... You know that there are actual lawyers who are using ChatGPT right now?  |
|
|
|
Post by driver1980 on Jan 4, 2024 8:35:10 GMT -5
I worry about people using ChatGPT to diagnose medical ailments.  I always presumed that because these chatbots (if that’s the right term) answer a question instantly, they just conflate a lot of things. This is clearly what has happened here. I know we all lead busy lives, but sometimes it’s worth checking out proper sources. I mean, as boring as it would be, if I wanted to clarify some UK legislation, I’d go to the official source and check out transcripts; ChatGPT would probably do something silly like conflate, say, Scottish law with UK-wide legislation. I trust (mostly) websites where people have put hard work in than a chatbot who conflates things. |
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Jan 4, 2024 8:46:27 GMT -5
I worry about people using ChatGPT to diagnose medical ailments. I always presumed that because these chatbots (if that’s the right term) answer a question instantly, they just conflate a lot of things. This is clearly what has happened here. I know we all lead busy lives, but sometimes it’s worth checking out proper sources. I mean, as boring as it would be, if I wanted to clarify some UK legislation, I’d go to the official source and check out transcripts; ChatGPT would probably do something silly like conflate, say, Scottish law with UK-wide legislation. I trust (mostly) websites where people have put hard work in than a chatbot who conflates things. Did you hear this story? |
|
