Put me in the pre_Byrne Superman looks like an old guy. He is drawn and acts middle age.  Sometimes he looks like he has a severe receding hairline.  George Reeves Superman also looks very very old.

I've never seen that Superman as much younger than at least 35, and probably closer to 40.

The newer Superman has seemed somewhat younger. 

Someone closing in on 30 during the 1950s was far more mature than someone that age now, which is obviously unfortunate

***

The guy 30 years old in the 50s had been to war, and had 3 kids. He had been reared in the Great Depression, but now was able to buy a home. He had been working for at least 12 years.   The guy 30 years old now could be only a few years out of school, cannot afford to buy a house, and is at best married a year with no kids. He's probably been working full-time 5 years.  There is a big difference. He is less mature because less has happened to him (and to be fair less is expected of him).

On the other hand, he is probably a more sensitive and understanding person, less likely to be racist and sexist, and more likely to have a closer relationship with his children when he does have them.  (Maybe too close-see some of the kids).

"What is the point of giving a character a name that has nothing to do with their particular schtick, unless, as noted many times, they somehow become appropriate via specific use, a la Cyclops or Medusa? "

 Wouldn't it get a tad boring and predictable if every character was named by what they could do? Shouldn't there be some variety to the naming of characters? I like that most characters are given a name that fits their power/origin but I think it could get a little silly if every character had to do this. Might just be me.

Are Cyclops and Medusa "named by what they could do"? It's true even Stan Lee broke this rule occasionally -- Black Bolt, Gorgon, Karnak and Crystal have names that really tell us nothing about them (tho, it can be noted, the latter three are actually their real names, albeit in translation). But for the most part, it's best if the name and the costume tell us who the character is.

****

You're being sarcastic, but you are correct. What is the point of giving a character a name that has nothing to do with their particular schtick, unless, as noted many times, they somehow become appropriate via specific use, a la Cyclops or Medusa?

********************************************************

Yep. To this day I can never recall what Bishop's power is becuae there is no "hook".

The mainstream guys-in-tights scene resembles pro-wrestling or Power Rangers, two other things I consider myself too old for. 

Thus proving JB's point.

Mike Norris wrote: Yep. To this day I can never recall what Bishop's power is becuae there is no "hook".

Please refer to:

John Byrne wrote: It's true even Stan Lee broke this rule occasionally -- Black Bolt, Gorgon, Karnak and Crystal have names that really tell us nothing about them (tho, it can be noted, the latter three are actually their real names, albeit in translation).

Given that the character's name is Lucas Bishop....  ;-)

Bishop I believe absorbs kinetic energy or some such.  You shoot him with an energy blasts he can absorb it and shoot it right back at you

He never had another identity-never needed it where he was from I guess.