I'm still very much in the grip of Dalek-mania -- printouts of my plans confirms that the Dalek bumps on the blueprints are exactly the same size as brass fasteners, which should make for even cooler faux Daleks -- but given the debate raging on at TAB's page concerning Superman and Spider-Man (which is better?), I figured I'd repost my comments on the matter here just so I can have them documented amidst my other online writings. First, however, a few more Dalek links...

Dalek cupcakes and Dalek cakes. Seriously.

Daleks featured in a pornographic film -- one that I'm desperately trying to find for download, though obviously more for the presence of the Daleks than the racier bits. Check out a few screencaps from the movie here (warning: NSFW!). Dalek plunger appendages are the perfect shape for breast groping, don't you think?

Anyway, there's nothing new regarding the remarks below if you've already read them at TAB's, but one of the major points of the argument (and probably the only remotely interesting thing about Superman) is that whereas Spider-Man et all are "truly" their secret identities, Superman is "truly" Superman. That is, whereas other characters don masks to become superheroes, Superman dons his mask in order to become more normal. I believe a similar sentiment was echoed in one of the Kill Bill volumes. I argued that this is actually not the case -- see below -- but upon thinking more about it I think the difference in opinion may have to do with the different versions of Superman that has been presented to different generations. For example, the bumbling Clark Kent of the earlier media was indeed an act to mask Superman's true self, but the Clark Kent that I'm familiar with from "Lois & Clark" and the Superman animated series is a capable, relaxed guy: Clark simply being himself without having to take to the skies and bat away descending meteors. More on that can be found here, if anyone's interested in Superman's identity.

And now, the comments: ...yeah, Superman is stronger than Spider-Man. That's not in dispute. Dave notes that, as Clark Kent, he's got a better job than Spider-Man's Peter Parker. We'll give him that.

Spidey's a thoroughly more interesting character, though. Superman derives his power simply by being born a Kryptonian and living under our sun (whoop dee doo); Spidey was bitten by a radioactive insect and underwent a genetic mutation -- a mutation, I might add, that has caused him serious problems on several occasions due to its instability. Superman just kinda flies around effortlessly; Spider-Man (at least in the comics) had to create the formula for his webbing and physically build his web shooters in order to be able to do his cityscape swingin'. I could go on...

Also, Superman never got his own freaky Japanese live action show in which he piloted a giant mech. +V Supaidaman.

And in reference to Dave's comment that Spider-Man taught kids to read on "The Electric Company": Teaching kids to read is awesome! Another point for Spidey. Appearing on The Electric Company at all is pretty cool, actually. That show had Morgan Freeman playing Dracula, for crying out loud.

And regarding the issue discussed above: ...what's all this about the Clark Kent identity being a disguise? It may be true that Superman was born Kal-El on Krypton, but as far as he knew he was Clark Kent until he discovered his super powers during his teenage years -- much like Spider-Man acquired his during that time period. Sure, Superman's got the Kryptonian ties, but he grew up being Clark Kent and (as far as I know) has never regarded his "normal" persona as being anything less than his basic identity. When he returns to the farm, Ma and Pa Kent don't call him Superman or Kal-El -- they call him Clark. Lois knows his identity, but I'm sure she calls him Clark during their tender moments alone. (Unless they're in the midst of hot passionate action; then she might inadvertently scream, "Fuck me, Superman!" or something along those lines.) As far as I know, the only people who call Superman by his birth name are his enemies and extraterrestrial beings who don't know him all that well.

From the Wikipedia entry on Superman:

Unlike Batman, Superman considers himself Clark Kent first and Superman second. In an episode of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman Superman says, "Superman is what I can do; Clark is who I am."

So even the most interesting thing about Superman is shown to be based on a misunderstanding of his conception of himself -- or upon people's tendency to identify people with outside events and "heritage" rather than the qualities and personality that truly defines them. Victory for Spider-Man.

And finally, based on the recognition of the merits of Superman's earlier Kent persona: ...I agree that the acting involved in being the Clark Kent of old made Superman a little more interesting as a character.

But more interesting than Spider-Man? Nah. It's also worth noting that a big part of what makes a superhero interesting is the superhero's enemies -- and IMHO (though admittedly I'm not terribly well-versed in Superman comic lore) Spidey's rogues gallery is far more compelling than Superman's. In fact, I'd argue that on the whole Marvel has neater characters than DC -- and since Superman and Spider-Man have had dealings with almost everyone of any importance within their respective company rosters (in both positive and negative capacities), that would arguably give the win to Spider-Man by default. Of course, that would also conceivably put Cyclops (among other less cool characters) above Superman, so other factors must be considered as well.

All for now, then. Ja!