Right. Moreover, the deerstalker is only from the illustrations. He’s never actually described as wearing a deerstalker in the stories.
Has there ever been a Superman story where he actually had to flex his chest and make some chains burst?
I can recall at least two 70s-eras covers when he does just that. I can also recall a story in which Star Sapphire bound him to a skyscraper specifically to prevent him from doing so, as he would crush the building by doing so; clearly it was understood that he’d done such things in the past.
More t the point – in the comics does he ever change in a phone booth? I don’t think so. I can’t find anything in Fleisher’s The Great Superman Book and I certainly don’t recall any.
The idea got its start, I’m sure, from the Fleicher Superman cartoons. One or two of them showed Clark changing into Superman in a snazzy Art Deco booth (with frosted glass walls – so nobody saw him doing it, just a silhouette). And even in the cartoons they only used it a couple of times, at most. Usually, as in the TV series, he’d duck into a janitor’s closet or something to change. The “changing in a Phone Booth” thing became a sort of joke, as in the first Superman movie (where Clark casts a dubious eye on a telephone enclosure that only covers your head), or that drawing of Superman, holding his Clark clothes, pounding on the door of the booth while Alfred E. Neuman takes his time on the phone.
Nowadays, with cell phones, the image wouldn’t even arise.
I think it’s fair to say things that happened in the cartoons count as being an actual practice. But I agree that it’s certainly not a cliche–just a frequent image. It’s much more common for him to change in Daily Planet storerooms, and in the 70s & 80s, when he was usually depicted as having an office rather than working in the Planet bullpen, he’d often usually change back into his civvies there.
Speaking of Holmes one possible subset of false cliches would be famous statements that aren’t actually from the source material like “Elementary my dear Watson”
And similarly, isn’t it true that Kirk never says “Scotty, beam me up” at any point in ST:TOS?
I’m fairly sure “capes” is a common nickname for superheroes. (Although I thought this was only in the DC Universe) Makes as much sense as calling meteors “Shooting Stars”.
Hey, Cal, where have the Teemings columns gotten to? I’ve not been able to find them lately, and I occasionally like to re-read “Only the Penitent Duck Shall Pass”.
Umm, not quite. My Grandmother’s story about Vampires (posted here a couple of times) made it clear they only walked around by night. But I concede there was nothing to indicate that daylight was deadly to them.
And that list of Kirks non-conquests? Oh come on, it was the 60s, they had a lot of code to follow and censors to please. Note that the only two confirmed instances were the girl he married Miramanee, and one time he was “forced” into it.
I quote Bones “What is it with you?”
Oh, it is. I just don’t think it makes sense for it to be a common nickname in the Marvel universe. Look at the classic Marvel heroes introduced (or re-introduced) in the 60s: Spider-Man, Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, the original 5 X-Men, Thor, Iron Man, Hank Pym, Wasp, Captain America, Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, & Dr. Strange. Of those 21 characters, cape-wearers are a distinct minority: only 3 out of 21. The trend continues throughout Marvel’s history; very few hero-types (though a good number of villains) wear capes. In in-universe terms, it seems odd for capes to have bee identified with super-heroing the way the term “cape-killer” seems to imply.
They took Teemings down again. E-mail me, and I’ll send you a copy of the column (or of anything else I’ve written. Except the book.)
My girlfriend and I saw Dawn of the Dead this past weekend. Early in the film, shortly after our protagonist characters have established, I leaned over and whispered to her, “You know, the brother always dies first.”
Imagine my surprise.
This site has one of the best quotable lines of all time: “But there is nothing in women’s kisses, nor in their vaginas, that magically makes a man straight.”
This is why I was careful to use the weasel word “seems”. 
I thought 1958 seemed sort of late for the idea to be popularized, but I didn’t know of an earlier post-Nosferatu film that featured vampiric death by sunlight, and the curtains scene in the 1958 Dracula is quite memorable. But I must confess I have (shockingly) never seen Son of Dracula. I did check Wikipedia before posting, but it gives the cause of death in Son of Dracula as fire rather than sunlight. Or maybe he bursts into flames upon exposure to the sun?
*Good question. In Stoker’s Dracula it’s fairly clear that the Count is weaker during the day and much prefers to go out at night, so I think more than one writer could have independently come up with the idea that sunlight is harmful to vampires. From “harmful” to “instantly fatal” is a less obvious leap, but as you say, it would have been convenient for Code Era filmmakers to have a dramatic but non-violent and un-bloody way to kill a vampire on screen.
It’s interesting to me that the more traditional ideas that vampires can be hurt or repelled by religious objects and garlic have largely disappeared from contemporary vampire fiction while the sunlight thing remains common. I guess a lot of writers and filmmakers prefer to avoid religious references altogether, and a monster that could be defeated with a Pizza Hut side dish seems a bit silly. The popular shift from vampire as villain to vampire as Byronic hero also makes vulnerability to holy objects problematic. If the vampire is EVIL there’s an internal logic to having him shrink away from a crucifix, but if he’s at worst moody then it makes less sense.
Well, in Moolight the “vampire” constantly went out during the day (although long term desert sunlight made him very sick once, which could happen to one of us, too, so?) and I have heard that the Twilight “vampires” have not problem with daytime either, just wearing sunglasses or soething. I use “vampires” as once they don’t need to drink human blood, garlic is fine, crosses are not scary, and daylight is no worse to them than to a living albino- they have crossed the line from “vampire” to “sexy, bad boy, dark, superhumans”.
And in the stories and illustrations he smokes a bunch of different pipes - I’m not sure if a calabash is among them, but it’s certainly not even what you see him smoke most often in the illustrations. He seems to dig the churchwarden, IIRC.
The Twilight vampires avoid direct sunlight even though it does not harm them. The reason given for this may be the stupidest thing in all of vampire fiction:
Their skin SPARKLES in the sun. No, really. They’re big bloodsucking disco balls. To avoid arousing suspicion, they stay away from direct sunlight when humans are around. The main vampire characters choose to live (if that’s the right word) in Washington state because it’s so often cloudy there.
Uh, not that either of us read them, right? <looks down, scuffs at dirt with shoe>
Good guys wear White Hats, bad guys wear Black Hats.