Reboot: Character Portrayal

[Isildur´s Heir]

What´s the future of Clark Kent?
Is there going to be more for him to do, or go on with just being a 2 dimensional character, no more than a mask to Superman?

So, why the title of the thread, "The Real Truth"?
Because to answer the above, you to answer, how many "personalities" does the Man of Steel has?
Hence the poll...

3...Kal-El, Superman and Clark Kent
2....Kal-El and Superman are one and the same, that leaves CK as the second
1....Kal-El, Superman and Clark are all bits of the same person

[Zigno]

521425 for sure. i allways think who 521425 is the best.
and... i didnt understand the pool.

[Isildur´s Heir]

521425 for sure. i allways think who 521425 is the best.
and... i didnt understand the pool.
What´s not there to understand?
How many "personalities" does Superman has?

See, like some people that say that he is 3.
Kal-El is when he is in Smallville, when he can be himself, without wearing the costume and going around saving people.
Superman, well, that´s his heritage for the world to see.
And then there is CK, and that is no more than a mask created so he can be in society and live a normal life.

[WhatsHisFace]

Is this that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit thing?

[Isildur´s Heir]

Is this that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit thing?
Whaaaa...?

[The Question]

Superman has one personality. He doesn't have any psychological disorders. He's simply multi faceted. The Clark you see at the Daily Planet isn't a lie, and neither is the Clark you see flying around Metropolis saving lives. Neither is an act, simply what's apropriate for the given situation. Everyone has different versions of themselves for different situations. Superman is strong, confident, and awe inspiring, because that's what Superman needs to be. Clark is a little more inconspicuous, keeps to himself, and more laid back, because that's what Clark needs to be when not saving lives to keep his sanity. He's alot like Aticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird. Quiet, well mannered, inconspicuous, and a bit laid back most of the time because that's how he likes thing, but brave, cinfident, and kind of badass when he needs to be.

[Isildur´s Heir]

Superman has one personality. He doesn't have any psychological disorders. He's simply multi faceted. The Clark you see at the Daily Planet isn't a lie, and neither is the Clark you see flying around Metropolis saving lives. Neither is an act, simply what's apropriate for the given situation. Everyone has different versions of themselves for different situations. Superman is strong, confident, and awe inspiring, because that's what Superman needs to be. Clark is a little more inconspicuous, keeps to himself, and more laid back, because that's what Clark needs to be when not saving lives to keep his sanity. He's alot like Aticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird. Quiet, well mannered, inconspicuous, and a bit laid back most of the time because that's how he likes thing, but brave, cinfident, and kind of badass when he needs to be.
Of course he doesn´t have any psychological disorders.
That title of the poll was a joke, but i understand how it can induce in error.

I also see him as having only one "personality", having CK, Kal-El and Superman being one and the same, but many don´t, hence the poll (like many see CK being how Bill describes him in Kill Bill).
But i see that all midly mannered bit a little on the outdate side, and, IMO, doesn´t make much sense.

[The Kid]

I always thought superman was just clark kent without Glasses.

[The Question]

Of course he doesn´t have any psychological disorders.
That title of the poll was a joke, but i understand how it can induce in error.

I also see him as having only one "personality", having CK, Kal-El and Superman being one and the same, but many don´t, hence the poll (like many see CK being how Bill describes him in Kill Bill).
But i see that all midly mannered bit a little on the outdate side, and, IMO, doesn´t make much sense.

Of course it makes sense. He's a nice, quiet, laid back guy who doesn't like to draw atention to himself. That's all mild mannered is.

[Steelsheen]

The real guy is Kal-El. he's the Kryptonian survivor raised by humans on a farm and tries his best to be nice and of service to everyone.

Reporter Clark Kent is a facet of Kal-El personailty but exaggerated. Superman is a facet and an ability of Kal-El that is very visible and popular with the crowd. both are part of Kal-El as a person, buth neither gives the complete picture of who the Kryptonian really is.

Kal-El is the real deal. unfortunately few gets to see this, only his parents, his wife and a few trusted fellow superheroes who are in the same situation as he is.

[The Question]

But he's not Kal El. At least, he doesn't see himself as Kal El. He didn;t know about Krypton until he was an adult. If you had come up to him as a kid or a teenager and mentioned Kal El, he would have had no idea what you were talking about.

[Steelsheen]

i'm speaking present tense not past dude.

besides Kal-El of Krypton aka Clark Kent of Earth learned of his alien herritage before he ever became a reporter at Metropolis or wore the blue tights and red cape. so i really dont see what you're trying to infer.

if you're talking about the name, if the rocket that crashed to earth had a name tag that says "this is our son Kal-El" then the Kents would've sure incorporated that to naming the kid. but they didnt, so they came up with a name for him until later he discovers his real name and embraces that part of him that has been dormant all those years.

[The Question]

Sorry, no. He lived with Clark kent his entire life. I think that's the name he would have for himself, not Kal-El. Also, most versions of the story don't have him learning about his alien heratige until a little bit after he becomes Superman and moves to Metropolis.

[DavidTyler]

Question ... we are so much in synch... do you have a Sister?

Just kidding... I am completely on the same page w/you on this.

I've never understood how anyone can think that he somehow becomes the Kryptonian overnight when he discovers his heritage. He was raised human... he thinks of himself as human .. and the only name he would ever consider his real name would be ... CLARK KENT. That's the name he was raised under.

Clark is the man he is, Superman is the things he does, and Kal-el is just his vague history. Does someone who's just discovered that he's adopted suddenly become a different person? It's exactly the same issue.

[Venom71]

Superman is who he is..Clark Kent is the disguise "And who Disguised as Clark Kent....A Reporter for a Great Metropolitan Newspaper....SUPERMAN!" :super:

[C. Lee]

Multiple personality disorder refers to someone who unknowingly (or unwillingly) switches from one distinct personality to another because of mental and emotional problems.

Superman switches to different and distinct personalities in a willing and knowing attempt to confuse and mislead others to his true idenity, much as an undercover policeman or spy.

I see him as having one "personality" - Clark Kent (because that is how he was raised by the Kents since he was a baby)...and a seperate "persona" - Superman (because that's what he discovers his physical abilities can let him become.

Kal-El isn't a personality....it's a name and racial heritage connection to his ancestors.

[The Sage]

I voted two. I think Superman and Kal-El are one and the same, and that Kal-El and Clark on the farm are the same person. Clark Kent in Metropolis is the mask.

[matrix_ghost]

I think Bill said it best in Kill Bill 2 ( which btw is a crappy movie :oldrazz: ) :
An essential characteristic of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero, and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When he wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic that Superman stands alone. Superman did not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.


There is really just Superman , personifing Kal-El , and Clark KEnt

[The Kid]

I somewhat agree that he exaggerates his weakness sometimes to appear unsuper, but thats just Clark. He's been doing that his entire life growing up so its not that big a stretch when he uses glasses to disguise himself at an adult age.

It's like Goku. He's born Kakarot, but was raised as Goku and is primarily always going to be Goku since he was never Kakarot until his brother came from space to fight him and he learned his real name at the age of about 18 or so... from then on though he understands his true heritage, he's still Goku.

Superman wasn't superman until he learned his true heritage and decided to use the costume and everything to become supes. In the old series, little emphasis was put on the Clark because superman's really assumed to just have been superman and decided to create reporter clark, but now we know better than that with recent tv incarnations focusing on Clark Kent more than superman to give him more humanity.

So it can be viewed all kinds of ways, but I think it's always going to true that he's some farmboy named Clark who one day decided to become a superhero called Superman. We see in the stas and smallville and lois and clark that Clark the real him, the son of two loving parents, the guy who goes to work and school everyday like normal people, but when there's a job for superman he suits up in his colorful costume and like Spidey saves the day.

[matrix_ghost]

You mentioned DBZ .

You're my new hero :woot:

[The Question]

I think Bill said it best in Kill Bill 2 ( which btw is a crappy movie :oldrazz: ) :



There is really just Superman , personifing Kal-El , and Clark KEnt


I'm pretty sure that was meant to be a cynical veiw of Superman. Doesn;t really capture who he is at all.

[matrix_ghost]

That is a matter of interpretation now is it :yay:
I know what Bill said was something cynical and critical , but at the same time IMO i do feel he has a valid point.

Superman isn't Kal-El. Kal-El is the memory of his kryptonian ancestry.
Clark is you're everyday person , you're indentiy. Martha loves Supes for clark. She loves him as her child , she doesn't care if he has superpowers or not. To her , superman is clark the human.

But superman is the savior of earth. That is who he really is. Clark is the just the connection to humanity

[The Question]

But he was Clark before he was Superman. He was Clark before he put on his costume and decided to go help people.

[The Sage]

I somewhat agree that he exaggerates his weakness sometimes to appear unsuper, but thats just Clark. He's been doing that his entire life growing up so its not that big a stretch when he uses glasses to disguise himself at an adult age.

It's like Goku. He's born Kakarot, but was raised as Goku and is primarily always going to be Goku since he was never Kakarot until his brother came from space to fight him and he learned his real name at the age of about 18 or so... from then on though he understands his true heritage, he's still Goku.

Superman wasn't superman until he learned his true heritage and decided to use the costume and everything to become supes. In the old series, little emphasis was put on the Clark because superman's really assumed to just have been superman and decided to create reporter clark, but now we know better than that with recent tv incarnations focusing on Clark Kent more than superman to give him more humanity.

So it can be viewed all kinds of ways, but I think it's always going to true that he's some farmboy named Clark who one day decided to become a superhero called Superman. We see in the stas and smallville and lois and clark that Clark the real him, the son of two loving parents, the guy who goes to work and school everyday like normal people, but when there's a job for superman he suits up in his colorful costume and like Spidey saves the day.


Good comparison, but I don't think it's exactly the same.
Though Goku does acknowledge the name Kakarot when Vegeta addresses him by it, plus Goku rejected his heritage while Clark embraced it.

[The Question]

Well, he did and he didn't. He accepts and honors his heratige, but he still considers himself, primiairily, a human.

[matrix_ghost]

But he was Clark before he was Superman. He was Clark before he put on his costume and decided to go help people.

Yes but is that who he really is. Clark is just you're average human being.
I mean technically we all our kids , but it's only when we for example find the job that we really want to do , that we are known for what we do.
If you're a film director , you're know for that.

[The Question]

What the hell did you just say? :confused:

[DavidTyler]

Yes but is that who he really is. Clark is just you're average human being.
I mean technically we all our kids , but it's only when we for example find the job that we really want to do , that we are known for what we do.
If you're a film director , you're know for that.

So, I'm no longer David the guitarist/artist/guy who posts here/sleeps in on Saturdays/swims a lot ... Now I'm just David GS-11, 1176 series?

C'mon... Superman is his cover for the things he can do for others. Clark is the guy who kicks back on a Saturday.

He didn't grow up saying 'Gee, I can't wait to grow up to find out what my real name and personality is.' He was and still is Clark Kent. The name he grew up under and the personality he evolved as he grew.

I'm in agreement w/C. Lee on the Kal-el thing. It's just a heritiage thing. Like I'm actually of Italian decent but there is nothing around me that says anything about that. It's just my lineage and nothing more. Same w/Clark. He's an adopted child and is now a KENT and forever more shall be.

It's not that Clark or Superman are actually masks and it's not that they aren't. They are both masks at different times and at others, that real person shows throught. ... And guess what? It's the same person just reacting to different situations.

[The Sage]

Well, he did and he didn't. He accepts and honors his heratige, but he still considers himself, primiairily, a human.

Other thing is, besides his tail, there was nothing that distinguished Goku from humans. Clark's powers pretty much set him apart from everyone else. Everyone on DBZ had the same abilities.

[matrix_ghost]

Goku is actually really proud of his saiyan heritage. He just doesn't want to be associated with the negative side of it.

[The Sage]

He eventually becomes proud of it and develops his Saiyan pride. But at first he abhorred it until learning the truth about his race.

[Isildur´s Heir]

First things first, the all Kill Bill thing..

An essential characteristic of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero, and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When he wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic that Superman stands alone. Superman did not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.
...is the description of the pre-crisis...
In that time, Clark Kent was indeed a mask created by him to blend in, that means that CK is how Superman views humanity.

The truth here is that there is only one truth, Clark Kent.
Kal-El is his birth name, his heritage; and Superman is the name given by humanity at the sight of that heritage, of the powers he has.
I can´t figure out how can people say that Superman his who he is, and Clark is a mask.
The thing is that he doesn´t considers himself to be human...HE IS HUMAN!
He was raised as one, and, to some degree, he was born here, he is human heart and soul, just not physicaly.
If you ask him (if that was possible, of course), he would say, I´M HUMAN!
That´s why it never made much sense to me the all mild mannered angle of Clark.
When that all thing was created, it was for him not to draw attention to himself, which i never liked, because it gives the impression that Metropolis has only 10 inhabitants.
Clark Kent is, if you want to call it that, his human face, his real face, the one that has real goals and ambitions, the one that wants to have a normal life, with a family and kids and whatever, that wants to be a journalist and whatnot.
I can´t picture Clark Kent being mild mannered, i picture him as....normal.

But, the funny thing is, no one answered the first question of, what do see in store for Clark Kent in the sequel.
I really hope he becames more than a 2 dimensional character like he is one this one, and really get inside Superman as a civilian.

[The Kid]

*applauds* Preech it.

Let's give clark some credit everybody, definitely give him more stuff to do in the sequel than eat cake and spy on lois. He's always around. And I always liked how when superman went to visit his mom or Lana in smallville, they just call him clark. Superman's his pseudonym, nay... his title, I guess, Like Michael jackson's "king of Pop"

[The Sage]

First things first, the all Kill Bill thing..


...is the description of the pre-crisis...
In that time, Clark Kent was indeed a mask created by him to blend in, that means that CK is how Superman views humanity.

The truth here is that there is only one truth, Clark Kent.
Kal-El is his birth name, his heritage; and Superman is the name given by humanity at the sight of that heritage, of the powers he has.
I can´t figure out how can people say that Superman his who he is, and Clark is a mask.
The thing is that he doesn´t considers himself to be human...HE IS HUMAN!
He was raised as one, and, to some degree, he was born here, he is human heart and soul, just not physicaly.
If you ask him (if that was possible, of course), he would say, I´M HUMAN!
That´s why it never made much sense to me the all mild mannered angle of Clark.
When that all thing was created, it was for him not to draw attention to himself, which i never liked, because it gives the impression that Metropolis has only 10 inhabitants.
Clark Kent is, if you want to call it that, his human face, his real face, the one that has real goals and ambitions, the one that wants to have a normal life, with a family and kids and whatever, that wants to be a journalist and whatnot.
I can´t picture Clark Kent being mild mannered, i picture him as....normal.

But, the funny thing is, no one answered the first question of, what do see in store for Clark Kent in the sequel.
I really hope he becames more than a 2 dimensional character like he is one this one, and really get inside Superman as a civilian.

The Clark Kent that I consider a mask is the guy in Metropolis who masquerades as a mild-mannered reporter. The guy who was raised as Clark Kent and born Kal-El of Krypton, I consider them to be the same person. Superman is just a name given to him by Earth.

But what do you mean by becoming more than a 2 dimensional character? You want to see him date? I'd be more interested in seeing how he thinks of the world's problems and his role as the world's hero. Something like Peace on Earth. I remember Routh had made the comment in Wizard about Superman "realizing that the world is too dependant on him, that he needs to do more than save people, but also give wisdom". I'd like to see that explored.

[matrix_ghost]

IMO i hope to god this don't go all Peter Parker-In-SPider 2- love story on Clark Kent.

The reason why i like characters like Superman , aside from their visual presence , is that they aren't wise cracking. They have some nobility to them , like ancient warriors.
They give hope to people .

IMO what i would want to see is just how supes deals dependance of humanity on him and with clakrk i'd want to see just how he views this dependance from a human POV.

[lazur]

Superman does not have "different personalities". He has different moods.

It's no different than the typical guy who's a goofball at home with his kids, but a manager of 50 people at work who's serious most or all of the time.

When Supes is Clark Kent, I think he's being more like himself. While he's Superman, he's also being himself, but he's all business. He's looked upon not only as a Super hero, but as a leader, a savior and a mentor. He exhibits the qualities as Superman that people *expect*. In turn, his display of solemn and steady mannerisms do much in the way of causing people to show respect. It's all necessary to his role as Superman.

Kal-El, or the Clark Kent we know on the farm, is a mixture of both Superman and Clark Kent because, as Kal-El, he doesn't need to hide who he is since, if he's being "Kal-El", then whomever is around him already knows 100% who he is (i.e. his parents).

[skruloos]

I'd say there is one personality. Clark Kent on the Farm is the same person as Superman who is also Kal-El. However, Clark Kent in Metropolis is a disguise simply because it has to be. Clark must hide his powers. He must always be aware of his strength. He is not just "relaxed" and kicking back. The whole point of his being a reporter, to me, is so that he is in a hub of information. Once he reveals his identity to those close to him does he start acting like Clark on the farm. Otherwise, it is a disguise.

[The Sage]

I'd say there is one personality. Clark Kent on the Farm is the same person as Superman who is also Kal-El. However, Clark Kent in Metropolis is a disguise simply because it has to be. Clark must hide his powers. He must always be aware of his strength. He is not just "relaxed" and kicking back. The whole point of his being a reporter, to me, is so that he is in a hub of information. Once he reveals his identity to those close to him does he start acting like Clark on the farm. Otherwise, it is a disguise.
:up: :up: :up: :up: :up:

[thedarks0ldier]

4... I think Bizarro could be Routh's other character in the film, that way we can see if he's got some acting chops

[Steelsheen]

The Clark Kent that I consider a mask is the guy in Metropolis who masquerades as a mild-mannered reporter. The guy who was raised as Clark Kent and born Kal-El of Krypton, I consider them to be the same person. Superman is just a name given to him by Earth.

Superman is a name given by the media you mean ;)

i'm with you here, farmboy Clark Kent and Kryptonian Kal-El is one and the same person. that's what i've been trying to say for God knows how long. Reproter Clark Kent and Superman are merely facets of who he is, but does not paint the complete person. the awestruck feeling that usually goes with the :supes:, capes and tights are mostly projections of emotions people feel when the see Superman, but that is not the complete picture of him. the same goes with inconspicuous/ awkard Reporter Clark Kent-- part projections people cast onto the man, part purposeful exaggeration of his geekiness.

his Earth name is Clark Kent, and for the most part he thinks of it that way (at least the present stories does). but i always try to think of how this character will regard himself 200 years from now, or when the Earth passes away and he's still alive, or he has died and is taking stock of his life or any situatuations where he has come full circle: he'll still start off with "I was born Kal-El..." he lived his life as Clark Kent, as Superman, as Ruler or whatever else be in his future but in the very end, when all is said and done, he's still Kal-El.

[The Question]

No. He was born jal El, but he was only Kal El for about a month at most. He was Clark Kent most of his life before he ever heard the name Kal El. He may have been born Kal El, but he is Clark Kent.

[buggs0268]

Yes but is that who he really is. Clark is just you're average human being.
I mean technically we all our kids , but it's only when we for example find the job that we really want to do , that we are known for what we do.
If you're a film director , you're know for that.
Huh?

[Steelsheen]

No. He was born jal El, but he was only Kal El for about a month at most. He was Clark Kent most of his life before he ever heard the name Kal El. He may have been born Kal El, but he is Clark Kent.

dude what is it about my posts in this thread that you dont understand?

to you he is Clark Kent, being Kal-El as something of a distant memory.

to me Kal-El= farmboy Clark Kent, with emphasis on Kal-El because that was the name he was born with. the title of the thread is Real Truth isnt it?

and i dont know who jal-el is. i know Jor-El/ Jor-L, his father, but not jal-el. if that's post crisis then i'm the wrong person you should be talking to about that.

[C. Lee]

and i dont know who jal-el is. i know Jor-El/ Jor-L, his father, but not jal-el. if that's post crisis then i'm the wrong person you should be talking to about that.
I'd say it's just a typo.....the 'J' is right next to the 'K'....he just hit the wrong key...so don't go balistic.

[The Question]

dude what is it about my posts in this thread that you dont understand?

to you he is Clark Kent, being Kal-El as something of a distant memory.

to me Kal-El= farmboy Clark Kent, with emphasis on Kal-El because that was the name he was born with. the title of the thread is Real Truth isnt it?

But to him, Kal El isn't "who he is." He didn't hear the name until over two decades after he arrived on Earth. He was born Kal El, but he is Clark Kent.

[Steelsheen]

But to him, Kal El isn't "who he is." He didn't hear the name until over two decades after he arrived on Earth. He was born Kal El, but he is Clark Kent.

but he embraced his heritage-- the fact that he was born Kal-El-- when he found out.

as i mentioned over and over, to me, Kal-El= Clark Kent (the guy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, not the clumsy reporter). to say that he is "just Clark Kent" is to deny the honest fact that he is an alien, that he is the lone survivor of a dead world, that somehow he has to carry the pride and honor of a once great and powerful race. that is what the name "Kal-El" represents. but i am mostly pertaining to Kal-El the grown up man, the man who values the importance of his heritage and lives his life in accordance to the best values of the Human race also-- this is his acknowledgement of his "human" side. the man i am pertaining to has "merged" both sides of his heritage to come up with something richer than if he was simply just Kryptonian or just Human. do you get it now?

[The Question]

but he embraced his heritage-- the fact that he was born Kal-El-- when he found out.

Just because he respects where he came from doesn't mean he's changed his veiw on who he is.

as i mentioned over and over, to me, Kal-El= Clark Kent (the guy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, not the clumsy reporter). to say that he is "just Clark Kent" is to deny the honest fact that he is an alien, that he is the lone survivor of a dead world, that somehow he has to carry the pride and honor of a once great and powerful race. that is what the name "Kal-El" represents. but i am mostly pertaining to Kal-El the grown up man, the man who values the importance of his heritage and lives his life in accordance to the best values of the Human race also-- this is his acknowledgement of his "human" side. the man i am pertaining to has "merged" both sides of his heritage to come up with something richer than if he was simply just Kryptonian or just Human. do you get it now?

Yes. But saying his true self is Kal El just doesn't really work. He sees himself as Clark Kent. He thinks of himself as Clark Kent. He may have been born ka El, but he was raised Clark Kent. He is Clark Kent. The only version of your identity that matters is your own. If he thinks of himself as Clark Kent, then guess what? He's Clark Kent.

[The Sage]

Just because he respects where he came from doesn't mean he's changed his veiw on who he is.


Why wouldn't it? He acknowledges that not only is he Clark Kent, he's also Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton. Why can't he respect and acknowldege himself as both?


Yes. But saying his true self is Kal El just doesn't really work. He sees himself as Clark Kent. He thinks of himself as Clark Kent. He may have been born ka El, but he was raised Clark Kent. He is Clark Kent. The only version of your identity that matters is your own. If he thinks of himself as Clark Kent, then guess what? He's Clark Kent.

But if he learns about his heritage, his bloodline, embraces where he comes from, he also thinks of himself as Kal-El. It's nothing complex. It's like Arthur acknowledging he's the son of Uther Pendragon and king of Britain even though he's been raised as a common child, in a way.

[Super_Ludacris]

Kal-El is the person, Superman is who the people brand him as, Clark is the disguise (at least Metropolis Clark)

[The Sage]

^ :up:

[Steelsheen]

Just because he respects where he came from doesn't mean he's changed his veiw on who he is.

as Sage said:
Why wouldn't it? He acknowledges that not only is he Clark Kent, he's also Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton. Why can't he respect and acknowldege himself as both?

and as what i said (so many times i lost count):
as i mentioned over and over, to me, Kal-El= Clark Kent (the guy raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, not the clumsy reporter)...... but i am mostly pertaining to Kal-El the grown up man, the man who values the importance of his heritage and lives his life in accordance to the best values (principles) of the Human race also-- this is his acknowledgement of his "human" side. the man i am pertaining to has "merged" both sides of his heritage to come up with something richer than if he was simply just Kryptonian or just Human.


Yes. But saying his true self is Kal El just doesn't really work. He sees himself as Clark Kent. He thinks of himself as Clark Kent. He may have been born ka El, but he was raised Clark Kent. He is Clark Kent. The only version of your identity that matters is your own. If he thinks of himself as Clark Kent, then guess what? He's Clark Kent.
dude you only think of him as Clark Kent. for some reason you regard his Kryptonian beginnings to be no more than a footnote in his long history. why?

if it makes it easier for you to understand, if he could rename himself, it will probably be "Clark Kal-El Kent", that way he can respond to Humans calling him "Clark" and to other aliens calling him "Kal-El". that's what happens anyway in his stories anyway.

[The Question]

That's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that he thinks of himself as Clark Kent. Thus, he is Clark Kent. Kal El has meaning to him, but it isn;t his identity. Simply a part of his past.

[The Question]

Why wouldn't it? He acknowledges that not only is he Clark Kent, he's also Kal-El, the Last Son of Krypton. Why can't he respect and acknowldege himself as both?

He aknowledges his past, but first and foremost in his mind, he is Clark Kent. I'm not saying he's completely disregarding where he comes from. I'm simply saying that who he is is alot more than a name that meant nothing to him for most of his life. Kal El is apart of his past, but who he is is Clark Kent.

But if he learns about his heritage, his bloodline, embraces where he comes from, he also thinks of himself as Kal-El. It's nothing complex.

No. He thinks of himself as Clark Kent. He knows and aknowledges that he was born Kal El, but in his mind he is Clark Kent.

It's like Arthur acknowledging he's the son of Uther Pendragon and king of Britain even though he's been raised as a common child, in a way.

King Aurthur knew who his parents were. :confused:

[The Sage]

He aknowledges his past, but first and foremost in his mind, he is Clark Kent. I'm not saying he's completely disregarding where he comes from. I'm simply saying that who he is is alot more than a name that meant nothing to him for most of his life. Kal El is apart of his past, but who he is is Clark Kent.


Kal-El is part of his past as well as his present. It may not have meant anything when he was growing up, but after he learned about his heritage the name became a part of his life. Clark Kent is who he was raised as, but Kal-El is who he was born as. He's both.


No. He thinks of himself as Clark Kent. He knows and aknowledges that he was born Kal El, but in his mind he is Clark Kent.


I'll agree there. He most likely calls himself Clark while thinking (if he does say his name while thinks.)

Though there was something Steelsheen said: When everyone on Earth he loves has passed on and he's alone, will he still call himself Clark Kent, or Kal-El? Clark Kent is the human identity he was raised as, but he can't be Clark forever.


King Aurthur knew who his parents were. :confused:

I thought he was raised by a knight and only after removing the sword from the stone did Merlin tell him about his roots? :confused:

[The Question]

Kal-El is part of his past as well as his present. It may not have meant anything when he was growing up, but after he learned about his heritage the name became a part of his life. Clark Kent is who he was raised as, but Kal-El is who he was born as. He's both.

True. But I'd say Clark Kent is at least a bit more important to him.

I'll agree there. He most likely calls himself Clark while thinking (if he does say his name while thinks.)

Though there was something Steelsheen said: When everyone on Earth he loves has passed on and he's alone, will he still call himself Clark Kent, or Kal-El? Clark Kent is the human identity he was raised as, but he can't be Clark forever.

Yes, he can. If all of his friends and loved ones die and he's still around way down the line, he would still see himself as Clark Kent. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't.

I thought he was raised by a knight and only after removing the sword from the stone did Merlin tell him about his roots? :confused:

No. Hell, Merlin was like his nanny/tutor growing up. He knew exactly who his parents were the whole time.

[The Sage]

True. But I'd say Clark Kent is at least a bit more important to him.


That's fair.



Yes, he can. If all of his friends and loved ones die and he's still around way down the line, he would still see himself as Clark Kent. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't.


I was just thinking since at some point, Clark Kent is going to die, since he represents the human identity Superman was raised as.


No. Hell, Merlin was like his nanny/tutor growing up. He knew exactly who his parents were the whole time.

Really? Guess I need L'Morte De Arthur after all.:huh:

[The Question]

I was just thinking since at some point, Clark Kent is going to die, since he represents the human identity Superman was raised as.

Why would he? As long as he's alive, Clark will still see himself as Clark.

Really? Guess I need L'Morte De Arthur after all.:huh:

I'm guessing you were thinking of the Disney movie, right?

[C. Lee]

I'm guessing you were thinking of the Disney movie, right?
He might have been thinking of the John Boorman film "Excalibur"...in it Merlin gives Arthur to another family as a baby....and doesn't tell anyone who he really is until he pulls Excalibur from the stone.

There have been many many versions of the story produced over the years.

[The Sage]

He might have been thinking of the John Boorman film "Excalibur"...in it Merlin gives Arthur to another family as a baby....and doesn't tell anyone who he really is until he pulls Excalibur from the stone.

There have been many many versions of the story produced over the years.

Yeah that's what I was thinking of. Plus I think in Once and Future King, Merlin didn't tell Arthur the truth until he was older.

I'd love to see a modern day version of Excalibur.:word:

[The Question]

I had an idea for a comic line about various public domain characters modernised as supe rheroes. Robin Hood would have been an urban vigilante, King Aurthur would have been the son of European aristocrats who's a sort of "chosen one," and so on.

[Steelsheen]

again Question, you're seeing him as simply "Clark Kent" past, present and future. i see him as "Clark Kal-El Kent" which would unify his past and his present and the foreseeable future. we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on that.

[The Question]

I just don't see what there is to unify. Kal El was his name on Krypton, but it's never been his identity. At least, not the one he's forged for himself. Clark Kent is the man he became long before he ever heard of Kal El.

[Apellation]

The Clark Kent that Martha Kent knows is the real identity. Superman is the real him also, but that's him at work.

The Clark Kent at the Daily Planet is a complete lie.

[skruloos]

I just don't see what there is to unify. Kal El was his name on Krypton, but it's never been his identity. At least, not the one he's forged for himself. Clark Kent is the man he became long before he ever heard of Kal El.
And you're making it like a a person's identity is locked in time. I've known people who moved over here from Asis and were given "American" names and grown up with that identity. But upon visiting the home country, spending time in the culture, they discovered that part of their cultural identity and adopted the Asian names they were born with. Did they still go by their American names? Sure. But they also acknowledged their birth names and adopted them as part of their identity.

You make it seem like your identity is static. It is constantly shifting and as people learn more about themselves and the world, that identity changes. Once Clark found out about his true heritage, he could have completely disregarded anything Kryptonian and tried to live as a human all the time. But he embraces his Kryptonian identity and Kal El is part of that.

And I'm not sure if it's changed at all since I've last picked up comics on a weekly basis, but I thought that there were a select group of people who called Superman by his Kryptonian name. I thought I remember hearing Power Girl and other aliens refer to him as such and he responded. If that is the case, then it must be an accepted identity. But as I stated, it's been quite some time since I've followed the comics closely so I could be wrong.

[The Question]

I know Wonder Woman calls him Kal, but I think that's out formality. Or, he didn't wnat to tell her his secret identity, so he said that she could call him Kal, and now she simply does it out of habit. Most people who know his I.D. call him Clark, I think. In any event, all I'm saying is that I'd think Clark Kent is much more important to him, and is who he sees himself as.

[knightofistari]

What´s not there to understand?
How many "personalities" does Superman has?

See, like some people that say that he is 3.
Kal-El is when he is in Smallville, when he can be himself, without wearing the costume and going around saving people.
Superman, well, that´s his heritage for the world to see.
And then there is CK, and that is no more than a mask created so he can be in society and live a normal life.

First off, Kal-El in Smallville, etc....thats Singer's version not the current comic version. This is a version that I can't really agree with, since that would mean as Clark Kent he could have no real personal relationships, nothing truthful since he would constantly be having to hide himself and his true nature. He can never be truthful with Lois, Jimmy, etc.....

In the current comics, Clark Kent is who he is, which makes more sense to me than anything else. He was raised as Clark Kent, on Earth as a human. Clark votes, has an opinion and is respected, well liked and even attractive to women. Superman is nothing but a two-dimensional "Supercop" that has to watch everything he says and does because one wrong quoted opinion could have a huge affect on the populous. Why would he be Kal-El when he doesn't have any memory of that place and didn't grow up as Kal-El. As Clark in L&C stated, "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do."

[skruloos]

In any event, all I'm saying is that I'd think Clark Kent is much more important to him, and is who he sees himself as.
I understand your point however it just seems limited to me. It just seems your definition of an identity is very narrow and without possibility of growth or exploration. It's not as if Clark/Kal disregards his Kryptonian heritage. He embraces it. He explores it. Seems to me that the weight of the phrase "Last Son of Krypton" would have no meaning if he didn't identify with his cultural identity at all.

[The Question]

I never said he disregards his heritage. All I said is that I think Clark Kent is more important to him than Kal El.

[R_9]

I liked the way Lois and Clark did it. Clark was rised by loving parents, so when he discovered his powers it was a natural step for him to decide to help people, but he couldn't do that without losing himself, so he created Superman.

He learnt about his heritage later, but that didn't change who he was, he still was Clark Kent, a farm boy who just wanted to do the right thing due to his parents upbringing.

I know Lois and Clark is not very popular around here, but that's just my opinion. :)

[The Sage]

First off, Kal-El in Smallville, etc....thats Singer's version not the current comic version. This is a version that I can't really agree with, since that would mean as Clark Kent he could have no real personal relationships, nothing truthful since he would constantly be having to hide himself and his true nature. He can never be truthful with Lois, Jimmy, etc.....

In the current comics, Clark Kent is who he is, which makes more sense to me than anything else. He was raised as Clark Kent, on Earth as a human. Clark votes, has an opinion and is respected, well liked and even attractive to women. Superman is nothing but a two-dimensional "Supercop" that has to watch everything he says and does because one wrong quoted opinion could have a huge affect on the populous. Why would he be Kal-El when he doesn't have any memory of that place and didn't grow up as Kal-El. As Clark in L&C stated, "Clark is who I am, Superman is what I can do."
Actually Birthright re-established Metropolis Clark Kent as the diguise, with Clark on the Farm and Superman being the real people. Greg Rucka followed up on this in his run.

[The Question]

Actually Birthright re-established Metropolis Clark Kent as the diguise, with Clark on the Farm and Superman being the real people. Greg Rucka followed up on this in his run.


Rucka's run seemed much more Man of Steel inspired to me.

[M.O.Steel]

Superman has one personality. He doesn't have any psychological disorders. He's simply multi faceted. The Clark you see at the Daily Planet isn't a lie, and neither is the Clark you see flying around Metropolis saving lives. Neither is an act, simply what's apropriate for the given situation. Everyone has different versions of themselves for different situations. Superman is strong, confident, and awe inspiring, because that's what Superman needs to be. Clark is a little more inconspicuous, keeps to himself, and more laid back, because that's what Clark needs to be when not saving lives to keep his sanity. He's alot like Aticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird. Quiet, well mannered, inconspicuous, and a bit laid back most of the time because that's how he likes thing, but brave, cinfident, and kind of badass when he needs to be.

Well put. Very well put. Why does there need to be a specific distinction. I don't act the same way in front of my parents as i do in front of my friends?

[The Sage]

Rucka's run seemed much more Man of Steel inspired to me.

There were issues where Clark acted mild-mannered while on the job, especially in the first few issues. Then there's the issue where Lois does talk about the disguise Clark wears.

[buggs0268]

Clark acts the way he does to draw attention away from him being Superman. I mean, all his disguise really is is a pair of glasses. Put on a pair of glasses and see how many people you know don't recognize you. The answere will be none. People will just say "Hey! When did you start wearing glasses?" So he does the goofy act to deflect people knowing he is Superman. It is a second personality in a way, but not a psychological one. Just an act. That is all it is. And Tarantinos' B/S of it is his commentary of humanity is so far off it isn't even funny.

[The Question]

There were issues where Clark acted mild-mannered while on the job, especially in the first few issues. Then there's the issue where Lois does talk about the disguise Clark wears.

Yes. Lois does. Which really means that's how she sees it. Clark never said it himself. And really, he's always acted mild mannered. Even post Man of Steel. Mild mannered simply means that he doesn't do anything atention grabbing. He kind of blends in.

[DavidTyler]

............... And really, he's always acted mild mannered. Even post Man of Steel. Mild mannered simply means that he doesn't do anything atention grabbing. He kind of blends in.

Yes. Exactly. By being a clumsy, bumbling nerd he's drawing a lot of attention to himself.

When I was a kid in high school and wandering the halls instead of going to class (don't do this at home, kids!), I discovered early on that the way to escape the hall monitors was to be as uninteresting as possible. Don't do anything that makes you stand out as something different.

[knightofistari]

Actually Birthright re-established Metropolis Clark Kent as the diguise, with Clark on the Farm and Superman being the real people. Greg Rucka followed up on this in his run.

Birthright has not been officially considered a "restart" of the series. Or else DC would've restarted the entire line of Superman instead of continuing with the post-crisis Superman they had already established.

[knightofistari]

Yes. Exactly. By being a clumsy, bumbling nerd he's drawing a lot of attention to himself.

When I was a kid in high school and wandering the halls instead of going to class (don't do this at home, kids!), I discovered early on that the way to escape the hall monitors was to be as uninteresting as possible. Don't do anything that makes you stand out as something different.

Only in the movies is he a bumbling clumsy nerd. Truthfully, only in Superman I, II and SR. Reeve changed his Clark in III and IV.

In the current comics Clark is still a respected journalist, married to Lois with real friends, etc. he isn't bumbling nor clumsy, at most he tends to be forgetful and occasionally unreliable because he has to devote time to being Superman but he is not the dork that Reeve and Routh portray.

[The Sage]

Birthright has not been officially considered a "restart" of the series. Or else DC would've restarted the entire line of Superman instead of continuing with the post-crisis Superman they had already established.


It has actually. In the DC Comics Encyclopedia, it's considered the new origin and it's referenced. It also welded Lex's post-crisis origin with this Birthright origin. Whether it will stay that way is anyone's guess. But I think right now, Birthright is considered the origin.

[The Sage]

Yes. Lois does. Which really means that's how she sees it. Clark never said it himself. And really, he's always acted mild mannered. Even post Man of Steel. Mild mannered simply means that he doesn't do anything atention grabbing. He kind of blends in.

It could be that's how he sees it as well. The disguise is all about him blending in and not being someone who stands out, and not being someone who you'd think could be Superman.

[The Question]

It has actually. In the DC Comics Encyclopedia, it's considered the new origin and it's referenced. It also welded Lex's post-crisis origin with this Birthright origin. Whether it will stay that way is anyone's guess. But I think right now, Birthright is considered the origin.

No, it's not. It caused too many continuity problems. The origin as of right now is probably closer to Man of Steel.

[The Sage]

No, it's not. It caused too many continuity problems. The origin as of right now is probably closer to Man of Steel.
I think it's moreso Birthright, but a lot of Man of Steel's elements are included.

[The Question]

No, it's mostly Man of Steel. At least in terms of events. And really, I prefer that. Birthright was okay, but I prefer the concepts as put forth in Man of Steel better. Especially it's Lex. Lex Luthor in Smallville was an instant turn off for me.

[knightofistari]

It has actually. In the DC Comics Encyclopedia, it's considered the new origin and it's referenced. It also welded Lex's post-crisis origin with this Birthright origin. Whether it will stay that way is anyone's guess. But I think right now, Birthright is considered the origin.
There's no way Birthright could've been considered canon, at least not all of it. They would've had to restart Superman, there's too much that wouldn't make sense. The Lex of post-crisis Superman was completely different. So was the version of Clark. Lois would've never married that version of Clark. All the evidence I've seen was that Birthright wasn't completely made the new origin.
Maybe bits and peices....but I don't think completely, it would screw too many things up. Of course now with crisis over....no one is really sure whats going on with DC introducing the FOS from the movies and other stuff.

[The Sage]

No, it's mostly Man of Steel. At least in terms of events. And really, I prefer that. Birthright was okay, but I prefer the concepts as put forth in Man of Steel better. Especially it's Lex. Lex Luthor in Smallville was an instant turn off for me.

Yeah I'm not a fan of Lex in Smallville. But I loved Clark/Superman's character in the story.

[SatEL]

It has actually. In the DC Comics Encyclopedia, it's considered the new origin and it's referenced. It also welded Lex's post-crisis origin with this Birthright origin. Whether it will stay that way is anyone's guess. But I think right now, Birthright is considered the origin.

Nope birthright isnt cannon its been changed they are doing a new arc thats going to be based of the origin.

[LexCorp]

I see it as 3 also as he has Clark, Superman & Kal L.

I do not see many different version of this icon.

Are we counting things like Blue & Red superman etc....

[The Sage]

Nope birthright isnt cannon its been changed they are doing a new arc thats going to be based of the origin.

Really? When does this arc come out?

[Steelsheen]

I know Wonder Woman calls him Kal, but I think that's out formality. Or, he didn't wnat to tell her his secret identity, so he said that she could call him Kal, and now she simply does it out of habit. Most people who know his I.D. call him Clark, I think. In any event, all I'm saying is that I'd think Clark Kent is much more important to him, and is who he sees himself as.

Diana refers to him as Kal-El because that is his true name-- his birth name so to speak. she calls him Clark as well, but she uses it more as a nickname. she also calls him Superman, but its like a handle, and uses it only when they're working. outside of the public or in more personal quarters she reverts to Clark or Kal-El.

you see that's what i mean, Kal-El= Clark Kent. you seem to be stuck on MOS world where nothing else is of value except Clark Kent.

[Steelsheen]

And you're making it like a a person's identity is locked in time. I've known people who moved over here from Asis and were given "American" names and grown up with that identity. But upon visiting the home country, spending time in the culture, they discovered that part of their cultural identity and adopted the Asian names they were born with. Did they still go by their American names? Sure. But they also acknowledged their birth names and adopted them as part of their identity.

You make it seem like your identity is static. It is constantly shifting and as people learn more about themselves and the world, that identity changes. Once Clark found out about his true heritage, he could have completely disregarded anything Kryptonian and tried to live as a human all the time. But he embraces his Kryptonian identity and Kal El is part of that.

And I'm not sure if it's changed at all since I've last picked up comics on a weekly basis, but I thought that there were a select group of people who called Superman by his Kryptonian name. I thought I remember hearing Power Girl and other aliens refer to him as such and he responded. If that is the case, then it must be an accepted identity. But as I stated, it's been quite some time since I've followed the comics closely so I could be wrong.
nailed it you did Skru :up:

of those i can recall that calls him Kal-El would be Powergirl, Supergirl, Brainiac, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Darkseid (i think)

[LexCorp]

It's all relative really. It depends on who perceives him.

[knightofistari]

Really? When does this arc come out?

I just found out that apparently, After Infinite Crisis, there is no "origin" Birthright and Man of Steel are no longer the official origin and DC will slowly reveal Superman's origin.
Personally, due to the new FOS and Supes suit in the comics having the SR symbol, etc....I think it's going to be close to the movie origins.

[The Question]

Diana refers to him as Kal-El because that is his true name-- his birth name so to speak. she calls him Clark as well, but she uses it more as a nickname. she also calls him Superman, but its like a handle, and uses it only when they're working. outside of the public or in more personal quarters she reverts to Clark or Kal-El.

you see that's what i mean, Kal-El= Clark Kent. you seem to be stuck on MOS world where nothing else is of value except Clark Kent.

All I'm saying is that I think Clark Kent means more to him.

nailed it you did Skru :up:

of those i can recall that calls him Kal-El would be Powergirl, Supergirl, Brainiac, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Darkseid (i think)

Darkseid usually just calls him "Kryptonian."

[The Sage]

I just found out that apparently, After Infinite Crisis, there is no "origin" Birthright and Man of Steel are no longer the official origin and DC will slowly reveal Superman's origin.
Personally, due to the new FOS and Supes suit in the comics having the SR symbol, etc....I think it's going to be close to the movie origins.

I doubt it, since they have to fit the origin into continuity. Unless they do something wear he goes to the FOS for a few years, then travels the world, or vice versa before landing in Metropolis.

[knightofistari]

I doubt it, since they have to fit the origin into continuity. Unless they do something wear he goes to the FOS for a few years, then travels the world, or vice versa before landing in Metropolis.

I said close, not the same......obviously it won't be the same but they are doing things different, making him more pre-crisis/movie like. He now has much better mental capacity and some weird electronic disruption thing that he hasn't figured out yet (at least not that I've seen, my comic book store here is about 2 weeks behind the Superman comics)

[LexCorp]

Would anyone count the effects of Red K on supes as a personality disorder or rather count that as another persona?

[Steelsheen]

Would anyone count the effects of Red K on supes as a personality disorder or rather count that as another persona?

Red K has various effects, most notably bringing down his inhibitions. alcohol does the same thing for us. are you saying that when you're drunk and start acting out your darkest thoughts you have a personality disorder or another persona?

its still you, just the side that people dont get to see most of the time.

[LexCorp]

Red K has various effects, most notably bringing down his inhibitions. alcohol does the same thing for us. are you saying that when you're drunk and start acting out your darkest thoughts you have a personality disorder or another persona?

its still you, just the side that people dont get to see most of the time.

Well maybe not disorder but persona yes.

So is Superman just the side of Clark that we don't see all the time or is Kal L a side of Superman we don't see all the time or is Clark a side of Kal L that we don't see all the time? I think it can go beyond the regular three personas into mixtures and other alternatives.

[Steelsheen]

Well maybe not disorder but persona yes.
maybe what i meant to say by "persona" is a "different person" similar to schizos, half the time those with this disease arent even aware of the other guys in their head. when you're drunk you're not schizo (well most of us anyway ;)), but it does reveal a side of you that i'm sure many dont see often, you may start airing out your frustrations, your humour, your temper and so on. that's why i likened Red K to alcohol-- it doesnt make Kal-El into a completely different person, it just brings down his inhibitions or brings out the side of him that he tries to keep down.

So is Superman just the side of Clark that we don't see all the time or is Kal L a side of Superman we don't see all the time or is Clark a side of Kal L that we don't see all the time? I think it can go beyond the regular three personas into mixtures and other alternatives.
that's why i've been saying that Kal-El/ Clark J. Kent is the complete person because it is this guy that has all the facets of farmboy and reporter and superhero and alien adoptee all in one. with the exception of superpowers this character really isnt much different from any of us and our own personas (i'm using the right term here now right? ;)), the persona from your youth, the persona from work, the persona from your native country (if you're an immigrant), the persona when/if you speak in public, the persona with your friends and so on. the "complete you" is a mixture of all these personalities. in truth these facets personalities dont create you, its already a whole entity, its you who project certain facets of it depending on the situation. the same goes with our favorite superhero. :super:

[DavidTyler]

The intention of this thread is NOT who you would cast as the characters but, rather, what the rebooted characters should be like.

From there, we can establish HOW we each see the characters and better understand why each of us are making different casting decisions.

For example - my choices:

PERRY WHITE: Perry needs to be a great bear of a man. He needs to be loud and gruff but with a heart of gold. He needs to have some physical girth and a cigar stuffed in his face wouldn't be a bad thing. He's an intelligent man but also a man with a passion for what he does and the people around him. He can be unreasonable at times.

JIMMY OLSEN: I want Jimmy to be a skateboarder, IPod junkie, average American late teen. No bow-ties unless for an event. This Jimmy is more a layered shirt king of guy. He should have some solid computer skills and be a resource from time to time to the team. Red hair and short in stature but fiesty. Right now he's a photog for the planet but he longs to be a full blown reporter and that makes him prone to finding trouble.

LEX LUTHOR: Corporate Lex. A charming snake who is a master manipulator. Metropolis thinks of him as it's own billionaire philanthropist but, in reality, everything Lex does is only to benefit Lex. He has a cadre of undercover agents at his beck and call. He has a high tech lab staffed by some of the worlds best. While the public knows that he's a genious and has invented things that have been a boon to them, they don't know that he also has a secret lab that creates some very dangerous weapons. He's a cool snake with a keen eye for what will be profitable for him

THE KENTS: Still alive, down to earth, and a source of grounding for the man of steel.

JOR-EL: Possibly early to mid thirties by our standards. A brilliant young scientist full of passion but a rebel amongst the Kryptonian council.

LARA (mother of Kal-el): Has to be convinced by Jor-el that the action he's about to take is the right one for the baby.

LOIS LANE: A tough girl who's seen a lot of the world due to her father being an important military man. She takes no nonsense from anyone and is afraid of nothing. It takes a lot to impress this woman. She's acceptional as a reporter and can sense a story in the slightest of evidence. She's passionate about her work and she's passionate about the friends in her life. In a way, though Perry may feel like an uncle to her, she feels as though she has to protect him. Jimmy makes her laugh and, to her, he's a little brother. Now Clark, on the other hand - she doesn't know what to make of him.

CLARK KENT: He's a quiet, unassuming man who is methodical in his pursuit of a story. He seems to be constantly under control and not given to sudden outbursts but sometimes his excitement slips out - from which he quickly recovers. Those that he works with at the Planet are his extended family and he cares for them as such. He loves his parents very much and brings their values with him. He was raised on a farm where hard work and honesty are the stock by which people live. He's far from a nerd but not very outgoing and definitely not a showboating macho man.

SUPERMAN: A vibrant, fiery individual who acts on a moments notice. He's a tuned up human. All of the fire he keeps under wraps while living in Clark's world, is free to unleash. Unfortunately, this can also include his anger. While he would never deliberately take a life, he can be aggressive with those who've earned that anger. He is NOT a god. He is more akin to a super fireman or police officer in that his vision is not to lead but to help. He loves all of the people in his life but Lois is his special passion. He loves her total independence and that she is not entranced by what he is but is, rather, attracted to who he is. She get's his humour - I'd love to see a scene that includes Supes making an obscure crack to some perp and Lois covering up a giggle because she gets it. She understands when he's sad or angry. She get's him. It's not about his abilities.


OK... I did my take... someone take it from here.

[SatEL]

Lex Luthor: Mine would be a power hungry ambitious man that will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He will be ruthless and at the same time intelligent. He will be the highlight of Metroplois all the girls want him all the men want to be him. His a billionaire and golden boy who can do no wrong but in the background his behind a number of criminal activities. When Superman shows up he steals some of luthors Thunder and becomes the new golden boy of Metropolis not only that but Luthor will also harbour a deep fear of Superman. He will ask the question what if this alien this freak of nature(Lex would not see Superman as a god) decides his had enough of playing saviour and decides to play conquerer or destroyer. He will always harbour this fear but hides it from people. He will be around the same age as Lois and Clark, and will have to appeal to women. He will also have a decent build and dress exquisite at all times.

Lexcorp will be a driving force in Metropolis, with its slogan being Luthorcorp bringing a brighter future to all. Also Luthorcorp will be one of the funders to a research facility known as S.t.a.r. labs. Lex will be on good terms with a genius known as Doctor Hamilton who is the brains behind S.t.a.r. labs, within this facility a number of research activities are going on from the development of Metahumans to gene slicing and mergers. As well as the latest development that Hamilton has stumbled across which is cloning he has almost perfected the cloning process but with a few flaws in the clones personality.

[DavidTyler]

Your Lex and mine are very similar

[VenomsMom]

Lex Luthor: Mine would be a power hungry ambitious man that will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He will be ruthless and at the same time intelligent. He will be the highlight of Metroplois all the girls want him all the men want to be him. His a billionaire and golden boy who can do no wrong but in the background his behind a number of criminal activities. When Superman shows up he steals some of luthors Thunder and becomes the new golden boy of Metropolis not only that but Luthor will also harbour a deep fear of Superman. He will ask the question what if this alien this freak of nature(Lex would not see Superman as a god) decides his had enough of playing saviour and decides to play conquerer or destroyer. He will always harbour this fear but hides it from people. He will be around the same age as Lois and Clark, and will have to appeal to women. He will also have a decent build and dress exquisite at all times.

Lexcorp will be a driving force in Metropolis, with its slogan being Luthorcorp bringing a brighter future to all. Also Luthorcorp will be one of the funders to a research facility known as S.t.a.r. labs. Lex will be on good terms with a genius known as Doctor Hamilton who is the brains behind S.t.a.r. labs, within this facility a number of research activities are going on from the development of Metahumans to gene slicing and mergers. As well as the latest development that Hamilton has stumbled across which is cloning he has almost perfected the cloning process but with a few flaws in the clones personality.
:applaud This is what I envision for Luther. This is a very important character for Superman. You must feel like a man with no superpowers poses a serious threat to a man with superpowers. There has to be a fear for a man with power respect and a strong influence in Metropolis. If anyone needed a revamp in the worst way after Donner it is Lex.

[Rust]

Lex Luthor: Definitely less clowny and actually feared by those around him. I like Lex in SMALLVILLE as the charming determined playboy who got stepped over the toes one time to many and got betrayed by the people he loved. I'd like to see a matured and experienced version of that Lex combined with a less "one-sided" Harvey Dent from TDK and a little bit of Ozymandias from Watchmen.
And I'd like it if Lex was actually rather fit physically and had cool gadgets, mech-suits and weaponry (possibly kryptonite-enhanced) against Supes, so throw in a little bit of Tony Stark as well.

[Anita18]

After seeing TDK again, I have a question for those who are familiar with the Superman stories...

What about the citizens of Metropolis? How should they be portrayed in a presumably more epic Superman reboot?

In a typical superhero movie, the regular citizens are relegated to simple, frightened pawns in the villain's plot, meant only for the hero to rescue since...well, they're innocent people. But usually nothing more than a plot point. At best, they help the hero out a little by distracting the villain, like in the Spiderman films. At worst, all they can do to be helpful is get out of the hero's way, like in the X-Men films.

TDK showed us that the folks in the background in fact do have their own motivations, and can (and do!) turn the tide of the conflict by themselves. I think that single difference is what made TDK feel like a more epic crime drama than your regular, formulaic superhero film, more than any other factor.

Like Batman, Superman is defined by his relationship with regular people. So how would they go about doing it?

[manofsteel4life]

After seeing TDK again, I have a question for those who are familiar with the Superman stories...

What about the citizens of Metropolis? How should they be portrayed in a presumably more epic Superman reboot?

In a typical superhero movie, the regular citizens are relegated to simple, frightened pawns in the villain's plot, meant only for the hero to rescue since...well, they're innocent people. But usually nothing more than a plot point. At best, they help the hero out a little by distracting the villain, like in the Spiderman films. At worst, all they can do to be helpful is get out of the hero's way, like in the X-Men films.

TDK showed us that the folks in the background in fact do have their own motivations, and can (and do!) turn the tide of the conflict by themselves. I think that single difference is what made TDK feel like a more epic crime drama than your regular, formulaic superhero film, more than any other factor.

Like Batman, Superman is defined by his relationship with regular people. So how would they go about doing it?
good point.....watching that scene on the boat...made me wish it was in s superman movie....that would be really inspiring

[Ultimate_Superman]

After seeing TDK again, I have a question for those who are familiar with the Superman stories...

What about the citizens of Metropolis? How should they be portrayed in a presumably more epic Superman reboot?

In a typical superhero movie, the regular citizens are relegated to simple, frightened pawns in the villain's plot, meant only for the hero to rescue since...well, they're innocent people. But usually nothing more than a plot point. At best, they help the hero out a little by distracting the villain, like in the Spiderman films. At worst, all they can do to be helpful is get out of the hero's way, like in the X-Men films.

TDK showed us that the folks in the background in fact do have their own motivations, and can (and do!) turn the tide of the conflict by themselves. I think that single difference is what made TDK feel like a more epic crime drama than your regular, formulaic superhero film, more than any other factor.

Like Batman, Superman is defined by his relationship with regular people. So how would they go about doing it?Superman shouldn't interact to much with the people and really shouldn't say that much at all. Superman is alot like Batman in terms of if this movie is really an origin movie then when Superman first started out in both all his origins he never talked to away but Lois and even when he warmed up to people he rarely talked to anyone else but Lois, Lana, Jimmy and Perry and Lex and that's how it should be. He never took pictures and rarely gave interviews. Singer did a good job with Superman in that view. This Superman should be the same way really.

[Anita18]

Superman shouldn't interact to much with the people and really shouldn't say that much at all. Superman is alot like Batman in terms of if this movie is really an origin movie then when Superman first started out in both all his origins he never talked to away but Lois and even when he warmed up to people he rarely talked to anyone else but Lois, Lana, Jimmy and Perry and Lex and that's how it should be. He never took pictures and rarely gave interviews. Singer did a good job with Superman in that view. This Superman should be the same way really.
Right, but Batman interacts with the same number of people, and never interacts with the public. Nobody will even confirm that he's working with the police. The only people he talks to in the Batman persona are the people he directly works with - Alfred, Fox, Rachel, Dent, Gordon, and whichever villain he's currently up against.

What I'm talking about is how the citizens would react and be inspired (or otherwise) by a hero in a costume. What would they do in a Superman film?

[Ultimate_Superman]

Oh okay well then for the first film I think they should be afraid of him and not trust him much like how they were in Birthright or at least question him like they did Batman in Batman Begins. I don't think he should win their trust over till the end of the movie. I mean he will be the first alien the Earth has seen after all they should either be afraid or not trust him.

[DavidTyler]

Superman shouldn't interact to much with the people and really shouldn't say that much at all. Superman is alot like Batman in terms of if this movie is really an origin movie then when Superman first started out in both all his origins he never talked to away but Lois and even when he warmed up to people he rarely talked to anyone else but Lois, Lana, Jimmy and Perry and Lex and that's how it should be. He never took pictures and rarely gave interviews. Singer did a good job with Superman in that view. This Superman should be the same way really.

I absolutely disagree.

While Batman is a shadowy nightmare figure who is often believed by the citizens to be a myth, Superman needs a lot of interaction with the people of Metropolis. He wants people to know him and to feel comfortable about him being there. He is the polar opposite of Batman.

Sure, there should be citizens who aren't exactly fans and, conversely, those who idolize him as well as all measure in between ... but he should be out there mingling and letting people feel they can reach out to him. Reassuring them that he's there to help. Again, he is the polar opposite of Batman.

Superman shouldn't stop and pose for pictures but he's not opposed to someone taking those pictures. He's warmed by the people he's sworn to protect.. otherwise, what's the point? His motivation is that he cares about people ... why would he distance himself?

[Ultimate_Superman]

Yes but if your going to do a Superman year one story then he really didn't talk that much to anyone but Lois. Remember in Man Of Steel 18 months had past and Superman still for the most part dealt with only Lois and Clark Kent (for reasons we already know) he did his talking through Clark for his first year and a half because the people were a little unsettled by him. In Birthright for the first few months he did his talking only with Lois and Clark once again and for his origin up until WWII he only talked to Lois. As far as pictures he never took any with out blurring his face. I agree the people and the good he believes we can do is what drives Superman but Superman really didn't interact with the people for his first year to much only with the cops and Lois. His second year and on is when he started to be more of a man of the people. But starting out he was always a little stand offish and if the movie is suppose to be a year one story then that is how he needs to act.

[Gamingboy]

CLARK: The main identity, not the secret identity. I figure that the Clark Kent people see is only 10% act, only the clumsiness and the excuses he makes to become Superman ("Excuse me Lois, I have to make a phone call, tell me later what this Bizarro character is.") could be a act. He became a reporter because that's what interested him, not as a way to quickly find out when trouble is happening (although that is certainly a plus). If he were just an ordinary human being, he'd still be a reporter. A generally caring guy who looks past people's differences (whatever they may be) and who generally likes to help people and uses words to do it.

SUPERMAN: Except for when he's using fists, heat-vision and super-breath. I see Superman as sort of an extremely careful God-on-Earth. He needs to pull his punches, his first priority is always protecting the innocent, has a healthy respect for the law and values human life beyond all else. And yet he can never save everyone or solve the world's largest problems, because he doesn't wants to interfere with this. However, Superman really doesn't have much "personality", per se, it's more Clark Kent's want to do good and right brought out. I mean, I think that if you were to seperate Superman and Clark Kent into two individuals, Superman would always be out and about doing stuff, he wouldn't be interested in anything or anyone. Clark Kent though would be trying to discover the truth, woo Lois Lane and visiting Mom and Pop back at the farm.

LEX: Lex Luthor is not the problem. Yes, for too long he has basically been the only enemy that Hollywood deems worthy of Superman, but that isn't the problem. The problem is the portrayal. Bring us to Corrupt Exec Lex. The DCAU Lex was best. Make it like DCAU Lex, especially the STAS Lex (he slowly became the standard "Mad Scientist" Lex as time went on, although the change worked).

LOIS: Wants the story, really, she's the newshound. The worst place to be is between Lois and a front-page headline. Sort of like the DCAU Lois and Post-Crisis Lois. Get rid of the "poor speller" and "smoker" tags.

PERRY: A gentle giant old-style Newsman who wants only the Truth. I imagine that he has high standards, only the best of the best dare work at the Planet. Believes that the Newspaper is still the finest source of news anywhere, and won't let anyone forget it. I imagine that he used to be Woodward and Bernstein, and that is why he has such high standards. Would be a grump if he wasn't such a nice person.

JIMMY: A little too-into-it for his own good. Eager to help out and not that bad of a photographer, just overzealous. Everybody's friend, but also one of those people that may be so friendly that sometimes you just want to scream at him to leave.

THE KENTS: Proud of their son, as they should be. Both are alive, and are always willing to give some advice to their son. Keep two scrapbooks: One that highlights Clark Kent, the other (hidden away from everyone) that highlights Superman. As a in-joke, their farm has a all-white dog, a cat with streaks in it's fur and an all-white horse. (No Monkey though)

METALLO: I've always thought of Metallo as Superman's analog to Two-Face, only Corben was always a mean SOB, I mean motif wise, not personality wise. He hates how he can no longer taste things, no longer feel things, no longer smell things, how everything is just data now. I think he'd be similar to the STAS Metallo (damn, they did get almost everything right, did they?), and he'd hate Luthor and Superman.

[Thomas Wayne]

JIMMY OLSEN: I want Jimmy to be a skateboarder, IPod junkie, average American late teen. No bow-ties unless for an event. This Jimmy is more a layered shirt king of guy. He should have some solid computer skills and be a resource from time to time to the team. Red hair and short in stature but fiesty. Right now he's a photog for the planet but he longs to be a full blown reporter and that makes him prone to finding trouble.

THE KENTS: Still alive, down to earth, and a source of grounding for the man of steel.

JOR-EL: Possibly early to mid thirties by our standards. A brilliant young scientist full of passion but a rebel amongst the Kryptonian council.

LARA (mother of Kal-el): Has to be convinced by Jor-el that the action he's about to take is the right one for the baby.

LOIS LANE: A tough girl who's seen a lot of the world due to her father being an important military man. She takes no nonsense from anyone and is afraid of nothing. It takes a lot to impress this woman. She's acceptional as a reporter and can sense a story in the slightest of evidence. She's passionate about her work and she's passionate about the friends in her life. In a way, though Perry may feel like an uncle to her, she feels as though she has to protect him. Jimmy makes her laugh and, to her, he's a little brother. Now Clark, on the other hand - she doesn't know what to make of him.

SUPERMAN: A vibrant, fiery individual who acts on a moments notice. He's a tuned up human. All of the fire he keeps under wraps while living in Clark's world, is free to unleash. Unfortunately, this can also include his anger. While he would never deliberately take a life, he can be aggressive with those who've earned that anger. He is NOT a god. He is more akin to a super fireman or police officer in that his vision is not to lead but to help. He loves all of the people in his life but Lois is his special passion. He loves her total independence and that she is not entranced by what he is but is, rather, attracted to who he is. She get's his humour - I'd love to see a scene that includes Supes making an obscure crack to some perp and Lois covering up a giggle because she gets it. She understands when he's sad or angry. She get's him. It's not about his abilities.



Lex Luthor: Mine would be a power hungry ambitious man that will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He will be ruthless and at the same time intelligent. He will be the highlight of Metroplois all the girls want him all the men want to be him. His a billionaire and golden boy who can do no wrong but in the background his behind a number of criminal activities. When Superman shows up he steals some of luthors Thunder and becomes the new golden boy of Metropolis not only that but Luthor will also harbour a deep fear of Superman. He will ask the question what if this alien this freak of nature(Lex would not see Superman as a god) decides his had enough of playing saviour and decides to play conquerer or destroyer. He will always harbour this fear but hides it from people. He will be around the same age as Lois and Clark, and will have to appeal to women. He will also have a decent build and dress exquisite at all times.

Lexcorp will be a driving force in Metropolis, with its slogan being Luthorcorp bringing a brighter future to all. Also Luthorcorp will be one of the funders to a research facility known as S.t.a.r. labs. Lex will be on good terms with a genius known as Doctor Hamilton who is the brains behind S.t.a.r. labs, within this facility a number of research activities are going on from the development of Metahumans to gene slicing and mergers. As well as the latest development that Hamilton has stumbled across which is cloning he has almost perfected the cloning process but with a few flaws in the clones personality.


CLARK: The main identity, not the secret identity. I figure that the Clark Kent people see is only 10% act, only the clumsiness and the excuses he makes to become Superman ("Excuse me Lois, I have to make a phone call, tell me later what this Bizarro character is.") could be a act. He became a reporter because that's what interested him, not as a way to quickly find out when trouble is happening (although that is certainly a plus). If he were just an ordinary human being, he'd still be a reporter. A generally caring guy who looks past people's differences (whatever they may be) and who generally likes to help people and uses words to do it.

LOIS: Wants the story, really, she's the newshound. The worst place to be is between Lois and a front-page headline. Sort of like the DCAU Lois and Post-Crisis Lois. Get rid of the "poor speller" and "smoker" tags.

PERRY: A gentle giant old-style Newsman who wants only the Truth. I imagine that he has high standards, only the best of the best dare work at the Planet. Believes that the Newspaper is still the finest source of news anywhere, and won't let anyone forget it. I imagine that he used to be Woodward and Bernstein, and that is why he has such high standards. Would be a grump if he wasn't such a nice person.

This works for me

[KobiKai]

I always liked the idea that Kal El was sent here because he could rule the planet, the idea that kryptonions aren't the peace loving people they always appeared to be is more appealing. So you would have a natural sadistic super being who's only good because he's been brought up by loving human parents. The possibility that he could turn would be a great plotline for the future which could include Batman.
Also i'd have Lex in the first movie as Clarks friend and develop a story arc over 3 films sort of the way smallvile did.
Lois would be his boss for now with no love interest but *****y comment made about certain woman Clark dates.
Clark would be confident in his abilities (workwise) but not cocky, plus i'd raise jimmy's age so they could be drinking buds. In bars is where the Lois/Clark thing can be hinted at

[Thomas Wayne]

I always liked the idea that Kal El was sent here because he could rule the planet, the idea that kryptonions aren't the peace loving people they always appeared to be is more appealing. So you would have a natural sadistic super being who's only good because he's been brought up by loving human parents. The possibility that he could turn would be a great plotline for the future which could include Batman.
Also i'd have Lex in the first movie as Clarks friend and develop a story arc over 3 films sort of the way smallvile did.
Lois would be his boss for now with no love interest but *****y comment made about certain woman Clark dates.
Clark would be confident in his abilities (workwise) but not cocky, plus i'd raise jimmy's age so they could be drinking buds. In bars is where the Lois/Clark thing can be hinted at


NO:whatever:

[Krug3r]

"CLARK: The main identity, not the secret identity" - Gamingboy
No No No...it's Superman. What you are describing there is Lois and Clark the tv-series.
He is not a man that becomes a superhero like batman, he is an alien superhero that chooses to lead a normal life, but he is not human he cannot be Clark. Clark is the act, Superman is who he is.

As for the rest I agree with your Lois.

Lex - I love the description of Lex by SatEL.

Perry white shouldn't be gentle, he wouldn't get the Job of Editor of a major news paper if he was gentle. He isn't rude but must be tough and not take any BS from anyone not even Lex.

Jimmy - I believe should be the comic relief, but only slightly. Should be the intern that the older guys push around a bit. Admires L and C and aspire to be a great reporter like Lois and Clark but doesn't bake them cakes.LOLOL Wants to prove for himself and Perry white but sometimes bites off more than he can chew.

[KobiKai]

NO:whatever:


:cmad: YES DAMMIT!

[Krug3r]

I always liked the idea that Kal El was sent here because he could rule the planet, the idea that kryptonions aren't the peace loving people they always appeared to be is more appealing. So you would have a natural sadistic super being who's only good because he's been brought up by loving human parents. The possibility that he could turn would be a great plotline for the future which could include Batman.
Also i'd have Lex in the first movie as Clarks friend and develop a story arc over 3 films sort of the way smallvile did.
Lois would be his boss for now with no love interest but *****y comment made about certain woman Clark dates.
Clark would be confident in his abilities (workwise) but not cocky, plus i'd raise jimmy's age so they could be drinking buds. In bars is where the Lois/Clark thing can be hinted at

Do you know the Dragonball Origin story...?
Songoku comes to earth to conquer earth but his grandfather teaches him to be good, has lot's of frien, the most powerfull but always humble and not cocky as Vegeta.
Your description is DragonBall

[Thomas Wayne]

"CLARK: The main identity, not the secret identity" - Gamingboy
No No No...it's Superman. What you are describing there is Lois and Clark the tv-series.
He is not a man that becomes a superhero like batman, he is an alien superhero that chooses to lead a normal life, but he is not human he cannot be Clark. Clark is the act, Superman is who he is.



I think Clark was portrayed properly in the tv series. His superman was a bit off though. You are correct he is not a man that becomes a superhero. Clark is who "he" is personality wise and superman is what he can do.

[Krug3r]

I think Clark was portrayed properly in the tv series. His superman was a bit off though. You are correct he is not a man that becomes a superhero. Clark is who "he" is personality wise and superman is what he can do.

Do you think so? I always though that Clark from L&C was too brave...there is one hero and that is Superman. Clark is no hero, and if you think a bit he has only the glasses to disguise himself that was always a weak point in superman, and he has to use the personality os clark to disguise himself even more.

[Thomas Wayne]

I'd rather have that than idiot, bumbling, baffon, trip over his own shoe laces Clark. He may have been too brave but in some instances everyone has to be at some point and time. I just want a Clark that people can respect not some complete nerd. As I said his Superman did need work to help distinguish himself more from Clark. I though Clark was spot on though. To me he lives a normal life because he chooses to. He enjoys being a reporter, he isn't using it simply to cover up his true identity or to stay in the loop and find criminals.

[Krug3r]

Ok Thomas Wayne he agree to have different views on Clark.

I like the nerd Clark because is the complete opposite os superman that's the hole point of a secret identity. It just doesn't make much sense to me to be brave as a superhero and to be brave as the secret identity. Maybe the L&C superman was a bit poor mainly because the Clark and superman were so alike and when superman appeared was only to grab the bad guys like the bouncer of a Night Club.

Superman can investigate on his own...he doesn't need to work as a reporter to do that.
If that is what he wanted then he should have become a cop or work with them like Batman.

It just doesn't make sense for me. Clark only makes sense as the Superman opposite and it's part of his magic that he acts a bit nerdy and coward but YOU know that he is this superhero and has amazing powers that can do anything and it's like you watching the movie is the only one that knows this secret.

[Thomas Wayne]

Fair enough.

[manofsteel4life]

Ok Thomas Wayne he agree to have different views on Clark.

I like the nerd Clark because is the complete opposite os superman that's the hole point of a secret identity. It just doesn't make much sense to me to be brave as a superhero and to be brave as the secret identity. Maybe the L&C superman was a bit poor mainly because the Clark and superman were so alike and when superman appeared was only to grab the bad guys like the bouncer of a Night Club.

Superman can investigate on his own...he doesn't need to work as a reporter to do that.
If that is what he wanted then he should have become a cop or work with them like Batman.

It just doesn't make sense for me. Clark only makes sense as the Superman opposite and it's part of his magic that he acts a bit nerdy and coward but YOU know that he is this superhero and has amazing powers that can do anything and it's like you watching the movie is the only one that knows this secret.
you said it perfectly......"its like us watching are the only ones that know his secret"......that's a good point point

[manofsteel4life]

not to mention you have to almost think for a second that supes n clark are two different people

[SuperDaniel]

Here's how i deal with each character and situations in my script:

First lets start with SMALLVILLE, THE KENTS and CLARK KENT because i believe they are all connected and it´s a progression of events.

Forget the Smallville TV series with Kryptonite freaks, paranormal stuff, etc. That may work for a TV series although i have my doubts. Smallville best stories, IMO, didnt use them at all.

The way i see is that Superman is who he is because of Smallville. It's because he is a product of that very little utopian community. Continue with me on this.

Any person who lives in a small city knows this. Because it is small, you're closer to your neighbours. You share their lives, you know them personally, they're your friends. This doesnt happen in a big city that much. Everyone is a stranger in a big city.

Superman is a product of this way of life. Of hard work, of better days will come or to summon up, of hope. Jonathan Kent learned that mostly because of Clark and that is an irony I find amusing. My script starts with THE KENTS in a hospital. Martha just lost a baby and the doctor thinks its better for not to try again. However, a few years later, baby kal-el spaceship crashes on Earth, restoring their hopes.

Jonathan Kent is a farmer and he uses what he knows and the way the country life works as a metaphor for Superman. I'm going to post here the scene:

EXT. FIELD - DAWN

On the horizon, the Sun rises majestically. JONATHAN is riding the tractor with CLARK on his lap. They're plowing the soil, making it proper for planting.

JONATHAN
Do you wanna give it a try?

JONATHAN points to the wheels of the tractor.

CLARK
What? I can't...

JONATHAN
(gently)
Come on. It's not that hard. I'll help you.

CLARK
Okay.

CLARK grabs the wheels of the Tractor, trying to do as good his father. He is scared but is also a fast learner.

JONATHAN
Keep it steady.
(beat)
There you go.

CLARK smiles proudly.

THE CAMERA PANS-UP SHOWING THEM RIDING THE TRACTOR THROUGH THE FIELD WITH THE SUN ON THE HORIZON.

DISSOLVES TO:

JONATHAN and CLARK now walk among the field, spreading the seeds through the soil.

JONATHAN (CONT'D)
Easy. Easy.

CLARK
Like that?

JONATHAN
Yeah. Very good.

CLARK
What happens next?

JONATHAN
Mother nature will take care of it.
(beat)
It will rain and, in time, it is going to grow to become like one of
those cornfields you saw. You see, everything is connected.
(beat)
I remember when you were born.
(beat)
It was probably the worst winter in Smallville’s history. I almost
couldn't bring the goods to Mr. Lang at the General Store.

CLARK
Lana's dad?

JONATHAN
Yep. We take what we harvest to them and then he distributes to the
community.
(beat)
If I hadn't fulfilled my duties in that day, other people in
Smallville wouldn't have survived through the hard times.
(beat)
By doing good to others, we'll always gain something in return.

CLARK listens. JONATHAN bends down, helps his son with the seeds and then looks at him, tear-eyed. He puts his arm over his shoulder and then looks at the sky.

THE CAMERA PANS-UP TO SHOW THE BEAUTY OF THE FIELD AND, IN THE DISTANCE, THE SUN.

So, when a Tornado comes later on and destroys this way of life, their friends houses, their community, you are able to relate with Superman and understand why he uses his powers for good. Why he is such a boy scout and an inspiration.

So basically, Clark takes this naive way of looking at the world outside of Smallville, spreading the word like Gandhi. Being a man of action, saving people. However, the world outside is a little bit big and bad, making things very difficult. And that leads to:

WAR IN KASNIA/ SUPERMAN ACTING IN SECRECY

Kaznia is a fictional country that appeared in DC animated universe and has great stories that parallels the real world. I wanted to use it as a nod to the great work Timm and Company did with STAS, BTAS and Justice League.

"The country has a long-running problem with civil war and other forms of domestic unrest. It is divided between multiple factions, the most prominent of which are the Northerners and Southerners. The Northern Kaznians are composed of tribes and have the appearance of a guerrilla movement. The Southern Kaznians have the appearance of a regular military, authoritarian government"

I personally believe that Superman shouldn't deal with political issues nor interfere in Wars because usually both sides are wrong, IMO.

So, in my script, I'm trying to simply expose the problem of the country, showing how a War is costing lives of people and Clark would be basically minimizing it by helping the injured, protecting innocent people, giving food, etc.

However, he will eventually realize that he didn't fight what caused the war in the first place. Clark will think he needs to act in a more STRAIGHT FORWARD role in society. He will become SUPERMAN, an symbol. Of course, as in DARK KNIGHT, with Batman, this will cause problems too.

Now it's time to talk about another character

LOIS LANE:

Lois is there with Jimmy covering it all. On the news they see stories about Guardian Angels, political speeches etc and although it gets Jimmy's atention, she doesn't care about it. Her response is basically:

"Jimmy, In times of war, people are in desperation so they will believe anything they're told. But i've been a reporter for far too long to start believing in Santa Claus."

This summons up Lois for me. She just doesn't believe anything she is told. She goes after the truth, exposing it in every way. That is a reporter, to me. She is totally realistic but deep inside she believes in good.

SUPERMAN is a naive dreamer but is also a man of action, like Gandhi, for example, and LOIS is a realistic person but also is looking for the good in people deep within. Although different, they are essentially the same inside. Both are optimistic and that's why they are soul mates.

LOIS will spend the entire script looking for answers, for the TRUTH, and this will inspire SUPERMAN to act in a way he really didn't think about it before. He will realize by the end that fighting for JUSTICE isn't enough, that the pen is mightier than the sword and METROPOLIS CLARK, the reporter, will be a more powerful tool in fighting for GOOD than SUPERMAN could ever be.

[Thomas Wayne]

not to mention you have to almost think for a second that supes n clark are two different people

Thats fine. I agree they should be two totally different people. However, to me, Clark is the real person that he is. He wants to have a normal life. Superman is what he does to help others. He can't have a normal life as Supes.

[Thomas Wayne]

He will realize by the end that fighting for JUSTICE isn't enough, that the pen is mightier than the sword and METROPOLIS CLARK, the reporter, will be a more powerful tool in fighting for GOOD than SUPERMAN could ever be.

I like this.

[manofsteel4life]

Thats fine. I agree they should be two totally different people. However, to me, Clark is the real person that he is. He wants to have a normal life. Superman is what he does to help others. He can't have a normal life as Supes.
yea he's really Clark in Smallville, but not as a reporter

[KobiKai]

Is it necessary that he's a reporter for the new updated version of Superman?

Just throwing it out there before anyone has a heart attack

[manofsteel4life]

Is it necessary that he's a reporter for the new updated version of Superman?

Just throwing it out there before anyone has a heart attack
i mean what else could he be as secret identity?

[KobiKai]

Pizza chef

[SuperDaniel]

That's what i'm saying. In my script, there is NO METROPOLIS CLARK, the reporter, till the last 5/10 minutes of the movie. He will be just SUPERMAN, the nicest person in the planet, fighting for what he believes, for JUSTICE and good. People won't need to see the clumsy guy to relate to the character. They will believe in him right away.

I think the choice Superman makes is really what makes the character so good. He basically gives up of a normal life to help people. This will be shown in my script with the story of LANA LANG.

[manofsteel4life]

Pizza chef
lol...your jokin right?

[Thomas Wayne]

In order for the next movie to be successful you need to be able to relate to the cast. How can people relate to Superman. You can't nobody is like him. Therefore, Clark needs to be the one out of the two that we relate to. Can you relate to a dork with glasses if so fine. I can't. People aren't like that. Clark needs to be the central point of the story. To me Clark doesn't see himself as Superman he sees himself as Clark. Clark needs love, care, recognition etc.... Both his parents should be alive and play a part in his life.

[Anita18]

Is it necessary that he's a reporter for the new updated version of Superman?

Just throwing it out there before anyone has a heart attack
It would make it difficult to write in his typical supporting characters since all of them seem to be involved in journalism. I think journalism and media would have to play a huge part thematically, so the supervillain conflict won't seem tacked on.

In order for the next movie to be successful you need to be able to relate to the cast. How can people relate to Superman. You can't nobody is like him. Therefore, Clark needs to be the one out of the two that we relate to. Can you relate to a dork with glasses if so fine. I can't. People aren't like that. Clark needs to be the central point of the story. To me Clark doesn't see himself as Superman he sees himself as Clark. Clark needs love, care, recognition etc.... Both his parents should be alive and play a part in his life.
I'm a dork with glasses. :oldrazz:

But anyway, we should see some consistency in the character of Clark. We should see why he behaves the way he does as Clark, whether it be natural or an act.

[Thomas Wayne]

It would make it difficult to write in his typical supporting characters since all of them seem to be involved in journalism. I think journalism and media would have to play a huge part thematically, so the supervillain conflict won't seem tacked on.


I'm a dork with glasses. :oldrazz:

But anyway, we should see some consistency in the character of Clark. We should see why he behaves the way he does as Clark, whether it be natural or an act.

I didn't mean it like that. It's fine if you wear glasses. I mean the bumbling baffoon. He can be clumsy but not so clumsy to the point that its a stretch. Like in Superman II i think when clark is pressing the oranges for lois' juice. He presses his thumb. Come on. If he's going to be clumsy be realistic.

[KobiKai]

Clarks a Pizza Chef
Lois is a waitress
Jimmy the pizza delivery boy

It'll be fine

[Anita18]

I didn't mean it like that. It's fine if you wear glasses. I mean the bumbling baffoon. He can be clumsy but not so clumsy to the point that its a stretch. Like in Superman II i think when clark is pressing the oranges for lois' juice. He presses his thumb. Come on. If he's going to be clumsy be realistic.
No, I know what you meant. I'm a self-professed dork even not counting the glasses. :cwink:

[Gamingboy]

Clark has usually (post-Crisis) been the "main identity". The L+C Tv Show didn't create the idea.

[Thomas Wayne]

Clark has usually (post-Crisis) been the "main identity". The L+C Tv Show didn't create the idea.

I know and thats the way it should be. Everyone always rips on L&C. I just think its more interesting having Clark be a real person.

[SuperDaniel]

People are not supposed to relate to the characters. They are supposed to believe them. I didnt relate to the Joker AT ALL but it was fun to see and i loved him. Same with Terminator, Indiana Jones and Superman. You have to believe in the situations and motivations and that is the important thing.

This is Marvel idea that you have to be like the character. Superman is not relatable. He
is inspirational.

[Gamingboy]

The other thing is is that it makes SENSE that Clark would be the main identity. He didn't know he had powers or was an alien until he was in High School! Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking about becoming a reporter in the Big City back when he was under the impression that he was a ordinary human being.

Plus, Clark Kent being the main identity is another way of contrasting him with Batman. Bruce Wayne has everything except living parents (I'm saying "parents" in the term of "raised them"), but usually is so absorbed into his quest that in many ways Bruce Wayne is the mask and Batman is the real person.

By comparison, Clark (while certainly not poor), is more of a average guy from a small town, the epitome of Rockwellian America, and yet he considers the all-powerful Superman just a mask to do good in, not his real identity.

[SuperDaniel]

No. I believe in that partially...

[DavidTyler]

I know and thats the way it should be. Everyone always rips on L&C. I just think its more interesting having Clark be a real person.

And you and I are on the same page with that.

The first thing that everyone must realize is that no one in that fictional world thinks Superman HAS another identity. They think he's Superman 24/7. So no one is actually looking around to see who he might be.

With that in mind, being the guy in glasses is his way of living a normal life. The kind of life he could have lead had he not been saddled with his abilities. And I think that's how he grew up... kind of like Smallville where everytime a new ability surfaced, he felt more alienated from those around him.

He faces being this superpowered individual as a responsibility not an identity. He's always Clark but, when his abilities are needed, he poses as Superman.

[DavidTyler]

BTW, Showtime, I like the new title you gave to this thread. Beats the long winded one I gave it initially.

[Thomas Wayne]

The other thing is is that it makes SENSE that Clark would be the main identity. He didn't know he had powers or was an alien until he was in High School! Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking about becoming a reporter in the Big City back when he was under the impression that he was a ordinary human being.

Plus, Clark Kent being the main identity is another way of contrasting him with Batman. Bruce Wayne has everything except living parents (I'm saying "parents" in the term of "raised them"), but usually is so absorbed into his quest that in many ways Bruce Wayne is the mask and Batman is the real person.

By comparison, Clark (while certainly not poor), is more of a average guy from a small town, the epitome of Rockwellian America, and yet he considers the all-powerful Superman just a mask to do good in, not his real identity.

And you and I are on the same page with that.

The first thing that everyone must realize is that no one in that fictional world thinks Superman HAS another identity. They think he's Superman 24/7. So no one is actually looking around to see who he might be.

With that in mind, being the guy in glasses is his way of living a normal life. The kind of life he could have lead had he not been saddled with his abilities. And I think that's how he grew up... kind of like Smallville where everytime a new ability surfaced, he felt more alienated from those around him.

He faces being this superpowered individual as a responsibility not an identity. He's always Clark but, when his abilities are needed, he poses as Superman.

Exactly.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Well, I have no specific story, but...

Clark: Despite powers or not, Clark wants to be a journalist, in part for the same reason he becomes a Superhero: to help people. As a journalist, though, he is not as good as he should be, or is held back by the kinds of stories hes given. He's not ballsy like Lois Lane, but he's not Earnest, either.

Superman:Superman, in my vision, ISN'T an entirely different personality: It's more of an outlet. Clark is enboldened by being a hero, by doing the things he knows only he can. That said, the acclaim of being a hero does fill him with pride.

Lois: She is a reporter who's grown frustrated with not being able to make an significant impact through her journalism. She sees Clark as competition, and may be willing to go pretty far to get the story before him. However, her attraction to Superman is brought because she sees him doing what she could not do: making those changes. Basically by the end Lois and Superman should ba a team dedicated to a same goal, although through different means, as well as a couple.

Lex Luthor: Luthor should be the man who has everything...except one thing. It can be the love of the people, or eternal life or hair or whatever. The fact is, that since Luthor doesn't have THAT, he is willing to do anything to anyone for it. And really, who's gonna stand up to Luthor, the richest man in town?

Dr Hammilton: Hammilton should be the Lucius Fox of the movie. As an aquaintance of Lois Lane, he is able to explain things to Superman that otherwise would be too technical.

John Henry Irons: He is the link Superman needs to see between his actions and results. He is an exploration between the relation of rescuer and rescued. Upon saving him, Superman should realise a) it feels really good to help people and b)that his actions have a positive effect in people(no, John Henry Irons doesn't have to become Steel...but he does have to "make it count")

Ma' and Pa' Kent: I don't think Ma' and Pa Kent should be entirely hyped that their son is persuing a life of heroism. I don't mean entirely against it, just...unsure. Of course, by the end, their son's choice WILL make them proud.

Jor El: I would make no attempt to suggest Jor El expected his son to become a Superhero. There should be no arrows pointing towards "IT IS YOUR DESTINY TO DO GREAT THINGS". All Jor El cared and Lara cared about when they shot their son into space was that he lived. They haven't got time to figure out his whole life.

[DavidTyler]

And, honestly, I don't think you can go another way with the character without it seeming juvenile.

[Thomas Wayne]

And, honestly, I don't think you can go another way with the character without it seeming juvenile.

I agree.

[Frodo]

Clark Kent : I'd actually like to see a different spin on him. I'd lose the whole clumsy weak Clark . He's world travelled and he's intellegent. He's also competitve as a journalist . You have to figuare he's gotten this far because people take him seriously and not as a buffoon. His outward appearence contradicts his drive. I'd actually have him have a genuine love for Journalism and writing . It is his career choice as opposed to just being a front for his Superman persona. His goal would be to someday become a journalist/author. He wear's his father's horn rimed glasses. He kept them after Johnathan died and it's sort of has sentimental value to him. He decides to try the Daily Planet because of it's great reputation during it's hey day . When he arrives he finds a struggling paper in debt . It's not the image he had of it in his head . Metropolis is much of the same way. It's a city who's best days are behind it.

Lois Lane: Quick witted, cynical, tough , and sexy . In this film she wouldn't be the world famous Lois Lane. In fact she wouldn't be taken seriously by her co-workers at the struggling DP. She be considered a light weight by many of the staff and some one who's gotten by on her looks and family connections rather then talent and work. She deeply resents it and has a bit of a chip on her shoulder . She doesn't have any friends there with the exception of a copy boy James Olsen .She has something to prove not only to the DP but to herself. She's seen the worst in people , and that has taken whats left of the hope she has. She's trying to emerge from her father's shadow. The Superman story changes her career and life . It challenges her own views of whether she can be objective and balanced. It also challenges her own feelings though in the first film she would be wary of him. I wouldn't have her get all goo goo eyed when she first meets him . He would earn her trust and respect by the end of the film then she would begin to fall for him in the next film . Even then it wouldn't be something she embraces . She'd fight her feelings for him and deny it to herself. It would be crossing a line in her opinion at this point.

[Christmas]

Frodo, youre Clark I like ALOT.

He should be a fantastic journalist who has high standards and sees it as a mission of sorts alongside his heroic persona. He should investigate lex corp and things like that.

I also would add, that I would really like if Clark lived in a really modest apartment and even though he probably has a great salary, he lives close to lower middle class people.
But that's just my working class hero bent on Superman, not essential by any means.

[Thomas Wayne]

I like it to but I think his dad should still be alive.

[Gamingboy]

Minor supporting characters (just doing for kicks, not saying they should be in a reboot movie, or any movie at all, just saying that if they were, it'd be nice if they were portrayed like this):


Willard Schott: A LexCorp engineer who's playful nature and almost-childlike outlook on life are completely at odds with the fact that he makes KILLER UNMANNED MILITARY MACHINES! Needless to say, when he decides to play rock-em sock-em robots against Superman, he loses and is hauled off to jail a broken man.

Leslie Willis: "The Livewire of the Air" who's shock-jock radio show airing on WLEX bashes Superman, The Daily Planet ("The Superpropaganda Department") and anyone who happens to be hating on Lex Luthor at the time.

Intergang: A high-technology gang with guns far too powerful to be bought off the open market, leaving opening the possibility that someone in a position of power is giving them this. The almost alien-like technology would seem to only come from one possible source, Lex Luthor and LexCorp, the only company that even comes close to that type of thing. It is general thought that Lex or a disgruntled underling is behind Intergang's technology. The truth, of course, is far, far, far, worse. Could be used as a recurring nuisance or a unrelated-from-the-main-plot "Just another day for Superman" action sequence. (Would, of course, be foreshadowing for a Justice League movie, where we meet their benefactor who I will not name because all of you know exactly who I am talking about)

Bruno Mannheim: Suspected leader of Intergang. Too bad he has PR and adream team of Lawyers that would make Lex Luthor blush, thus allowing him to never be convicted of anything.

[SuperDaniel]

It's Winslow Schott, not Williard...

[CGHulk]

I say do the character exactly like he is in the comics, you know acurately!!

[BATZARRO WWD]

I say do the character exactly like he is in the comics, you know acurately!!

It's a 70 plus years comic. There's bound to be multiple interpretations within those.Hey, maybe they should start with Ultra-Humanite!

[Hole Shot]

People are not supposed to relate to the characters. They are supposed to believe them. I didnt relate to the Joker AT ALL but it was fun to see and i loved him. Same with Terminator, Indiana Jones and Superman. You have to believe in the situations and motivations and that is the important thing.

As Superman fans, we all accept that.

However, there is a belief out there that the reason Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, etc. have been a success is because they are all flawed humans beings where Superman is ...well... Superman.

[SuperDaniel]

Wich is all BS because Superman has never been portrayed right in the movies, IMO. Give them a story that is as good as Superman for all seasons, Action Comics #775, Kingdom Come, Superman: Peace on Earth and we'll see if everybody is going to think that.

What Superman needs is writers who understand him and his motivations, love the whole history of the comics and are capable of handling the character and pick up the best stories and make a mix and develop it into a great and cool movie. It's not an easy task but that's the way to go. Iron Man, Spider-man and Dark Knight are examples of that. They are good movies because they are faithful to the characters and fun at the same time. Fun is key word. SR, IMO, was depressing and boring.

For example,I could and I am writing an origin movie that is better than Donner's but I doubt WB will ever look into that.

I've given some examples of what i'm doing with my script in this forum and people liked it. If I can do it, some writer can too.

[Oriin]

I want to see a world that is based in reality, criminals are dangerous and psychotic, the women are tough and no longer damsels in distress and the teens are stuffing their faces into Myspace and their iPods. I want a world that is based on our "modern" America and Metropolis while not as dark as Gotham still has the fear that they could be wiped out with the way the world is going, with the wars and such.. Most importantly I want to see a Superman who still is the boy scout, no angry Superman no raging Superman but the perfect cool headed look at what mankind could be if it was morally unshakable and had the optimism it lacks now.. Imagine what would happen to the world the first symbol of true hope and not some crazy man in a mask throwing metal spikes at drug dealers shows up in that world.. Thats what I want to see.

(PS, I'm probably rambling a bit out the rocker mates.)

[CGHulk]

It's a 70 plus years comic. There's bound to be multiple interpretations within those.Hey, maybe they should start with Ultra-Humanite!
I meant to say the characterization of Superman.

[BATZARRO WWD]

As Superman fans, we all accept that.

However, there is a belief out there that the reason Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man, etc. have been a success is because they are all flawed humans beings where Superman is ...well... Superman.

Naw. Superman in Superman Returns is way more flawed that all those characters. He was a sociopath, fer Christ's sake!


No, but in a serious note, i would object to the claim, obviously. Just because a character doesn't have big bullet points of flaws doesn't mean they aren't flawed human beings. Superman can have guilt, he can feel lonely and he can be identified with.

I meant to say the characterization of Superman.

Ultra humanite joke aside, that's what I meant. Off course there's behavioral boundaries that the character probably hasn't crossed, but he's subject to interpretation.

[batlovescatDC]

I personally hope this isn't an origin movie. I'm tired of hearing Superman's origin... it's been explained in virtually every single form of Superman media.

If I had my way, the film would pick up 3 years after Superman established himself as a hero in Metropolis, and obviously, also 3 years after Clark established himself at the Daily Planet. That way you don't have to re-introduce all the characters to eachother, you just need to introduce them to the audience. I would have flashbacks to Krypton when Brainiac enters into the movie. Finding out that Brainiac is from Krypton, and of course we would see Jor-El and Lara, find out a little bit about the backstory of Krypton, and then of course, the ultimate destruction of Krypton, and Kal-El being sent to Earth.


Superman: He should be the golden, good-hearted hero that we all know. But if you mess with the ppl he cares about, then you get a glimpse at his angry side. Clark should be a little bit less clumsy... more like he was in S:TAS. Slouches, stutters when he speaks, but I don't want him constantly tripping on stuff and knocking stuff over. I don't want him to be goofy as Clark, but I want it to obvious that he purposefully switches personalites as part of his diguise. And I want him to be constantly using the Daily Planet computers and stuff to always be checking on Lex and LuthorCorp activities.


Lex: He should care about only two things.... the first and foremost being power. He should be the most power-hungry person we've ever seen. He already has power-galore, but it's not enough. And u can tell that no matter how much more power he gains, it'll never be enough. And he is willing to take whatever means necessary to gain power. He should be very charismatic when he's out in public, but behind the scenes is when you get to see the real Lex. The Lex that is always plotting and thinking out what he's going to do next. And then the second and last thing he should care about is killing Superman. He hates Superman because of so many reasons..... he is jealous of the power that Superman has and doesn't think Superman is worthy of having that power, he hates that Superman is constantly getting in the way of his plans to gain more power. He gets angered by a very photo or newspaper article about Superman, or even hearing his name spoken. While he is constantly plotting ways to gain more power, he is also contantly thinking of how Superman might try to foil the certain plan he has at the time, and the way to take care of Superman so he never gets in his way again.

[batlovescatDC]

Lois: A strong-headed, opinionated, beautiful journalist who has a knack for getting herself into tight spots and dangerous situations, which has constantly crossed her paths with Superman, who has saved her time and time again. Her and Superman have actually been dating for 6 months now (like they had been when DoS began), but she still doesn't know his secret identity, though she certainly has her suspicions. When she absolutely has to, she can put up quite a fight herself as well, however she still seems to be Superman's main damsel-in-distress, but (although she hates to admit it) she's kind of grown used to being saved by him.


Jimmy: A freckled, red-haired young photographer working for The Daily Planet who has been assigned to Lois Lane as the main photographer for her articles. He gets involved with quite-a-few of the pickles Lois gets herself into as well, seeing that he is constantly going on assignment with her. He is pretty cowardly at times, and is constantly telling Lois when she's investigating something that he thinks she shouldn't be sticking her nose into, worried that they'll once again get themselves into trouble. But ultimately, he always ends up being by Lois' side. He almost always dresses in a green t-shirt, with a brown jacket, and blue jeans.


Perry White: A loud, general (or chief) type of man. When he wants something done, he demands that it's done. He gets aggravated that Lois is the one reporter that always argues with him, but he also gets aggravated that Clark seems to be the bigget pushover that works there. But when it all comes down to it, he views his reporters and Jimmy almost as if they were his children, and is a big softy when they are in utmost danger.

Brainiac: A green-skinned, bald, terrifying looking alien creature who is actually part robot and part organic lifeform. He has abilities beyond any robotic mechanism that we have on Earth. He lands on Earth, and the people are immediately terrified, and Superman is immediately suspicious and attempts to interrogate Brainiac right away. He knows Superman's Kryptonian name, which shocks Superman. He begins to explain about Krypton and that he is from there. A part robot-part living lifeform that was created by Superman's father, Jor-El. He refers to Superman as only Kal-El, and tells Superman a farce about how he tried to save the planet Krypton, and he is here on Earth to collect information about our planet because he fears it is danger of the same destruction that Krypton faced. The truth is, however, that after Brainiac collects all of the information on Earth, he plans to destroy it himself. After Superman finds out the truth, a battle for the planet begins between Brainiac and Superman. As one of the most highly advanced lifeforms in the universe, Brainiac possesses many abilities, and one of those is the ability to take control of any mechanical/electronic mechanism. Lex Luthor approaches him and proposes an alliance, offering Brainiac all of the computer systems and so on and so forth at LexCorp. Brainiac accepts the offer only to take over all of the robots Luthor has developed in his building to fight Superman. He even takes over a cyborg that has been hiding from both the U.S. government and Superman inside LexCorp that Lex has been helping to train to kill Superman.... a cyborg that goes by the name of Metallo. Brainiac utilizes his ability to control Metallo and the robots at LexCorp to pit them against Superman, so he will not have to delay taking the data and information from Earth and fight Superman himself. Of course, Brainiac's betrayal angers Lex.


Metallo: A petty thief that was nearly killed in a car-accident. A doctor came across him just in time and used his body to create a cyborg with one mission... kill Superman. However, Metallo's attempt to kill Superman failed. Lex took Metallo in and upgraded his body and had been training Metallo to kill Superman before Lex unhashed his next scheme so Superman would not be in the way.

[Frodo]

Perry White : At this point he is not the editor but the next in line. He was one of the great political Journalist of his generation but now has like the DP, lost his luster. The shareholders don't believe in him which is why he's been past . They remember his hard hitting stories on various politicans and lobbist in the day and they don't want him making the same kinda of waves against intergang . He's a homespun character and natural born leader, if given the chance. He doesn't know Lois , but he covered her father when Lane was the Secretary of Defense .

Jimmy Olsen : He's a teenage copyboy at this point . He runs around getting Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts for the staff. He has his own myspace page and blog . He's still in highschool and works at the Planet part time . He is also the only friend Lois Lane has at the paper. He's got a major crush on her and is always a bit shy around her . He see's that she has great potential and hates how everyone else at the paper treats her.

Lex Luthor: A man of many faces and many layers . He's one of the few beloved figuares in Metropolis. He's their favorite son who came from the inner city and became one of the wealthist men in America . Lexcorp has always been on the cutting edge of technology and military contracting. But he's also given back to the city in Spades . He's a humanitarian and has worked to have the US be the leader in science . He's very charming and has friends in many places . Many believe he's got a future in Politics but he always coy about it. There is another side to him however, and that is the side that only a very few see of him . The meglomaniac side of him that only his enemies catch a glimpse of and we they do it's usually too late. When Superman appears , He's see's Superman as a threat to humanity . In the first film he'll have zero interaction with Superman but by the end will begin his research on the mysterious person. He won't even know he's an alien until the next film which will further Lex's resolve to destroy this threat to earth.

[Anubis]

I posted this in another thread, so I guess i'll transfer it here


With Lex, the thing they have to do is combine all the good things that make lex a good villain. He should be a genius, first and foremost. No insurance scam bulls**t, we're talking Super Science here. We're talking about a guy who has created things that could conceivably hurt, maybe even kill Superman. Second, the Businessman side. He's the smartest man in the world, with one of the biggest, and most profitable companies in the world. He should play this not just as a scientist, but as a ruthless businessman. Combining those two make for the perfect Lex. Lastly, we need proper motivation. Lex is essentially, the perfect human being. Genius on a level never before seen. A modern day da vinci. He came from nothing, and built himself up to become one of the wealthiest men in the world. After that, he went back to the place he grew up, Metropolis. This one horse town that was basically what would happen if you combined Detroit and Newark with a little more piss smell, and turned it into a thriving, wealthy city. Lex did this. This is his city. But, then comes this Superman. This, alien. This outsider, and he takes the city, and hell, the world by storm. Before he showed up, Lex was the pinnacle of human achievement, but what good is human achievement in the face of alien might? Lex, being the futurist that he is, sees the problem that Superman presents. He will be the death of man kind. He is a God, living among mortals. Already the sheep of Metropolis worship him, and it's only been a few weeks since he arrived. He will take Man's need to do what he must do. We'll become worthless sheep, dependant upon one being to do everything for them. He takes away the chaos that is life, and by doing so, he will destroy us all. It's Lex's belief that, he, being the only one that sees this, that See's IT for what it is, must somehow eliminate the threat, for the good of mankind. So, that's Lex's reason. Which is waaaaayyyyy better then some God Damn real estate scam. (What the hell were they thinking?!?) You can almost see his point.

[Ita-KalEl]

This is my idea:

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=5HVdnfX6JaE&feature=related

[Super-Bats]

hey, Anubis, you're characterization of Lex is pretty much spot on!! That's the kind of Lex I want to see on the big screen!!

[Anubis]

Yeah, but I guess that's too awesome for the retards in Hollywood.

[Super-Bats]

true....lol :(

I mean.....you could always make Lex a Kryptonian disguised as a CIA agent......:whatever:

[Anubis]

Lol

[That-Guy]

I just want a Superman that's a commanding presence. Reeve knew exactly how to play the role, and I want something akin to that. Not saying that the new actor should copy Reeve. There are certainly ways to establish new traits and tendencies but Superman should still come off as someone who could either face down a massive threat or lead an army full-charge into battle. You know, pretty much everything we didn't get in Superman Returns.

[BigBlue1055]

Here are the charactizations I've envisioned since I've heard of the reboot.

I think there are two characters who would be most important in pulling off this reboot, Lex Luthor and Metallo.

Lex Luthor: I envision him as a mix between the characters we've seen in STAS and JLU, and in the TPB "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel". He genuinely believes himself, not Superman, to be the savior of the human race, and views Superman as the end of humanity as we know it. He is the head of LexCorp, who has their own cooperate super-hero, Metallo (more on him soon). Lex was Metropolis's favorite son until "the alien" (as he should always refer to Superman as) shows up. His technology has made Metropolis the most techonolgically advanced city in the world. He has schools, and orphanages named after him. All the while, he secretly deals weapons around the world to keep the U.S.'s own military gainfully employed, thus bringing more and more government contracts his way.

Metallo: John Corben is Lex's answer to Superman. Imagine a mixture between Corben in STAS and Hope from "Lex Luthor: Man of Steel". He is the "new" hero that everyone (aka today's average comic reader) wants. He kills, he cusses, in his mind, the ends always justify the means. Little does he know, until a climitic battle with Superman, that he is little more than a pawn in Lex's ultimate scheme. He has Superman's abilities, which he believed were created through a special gene therapy, but none of Superman's humanity, which becomes more and more revealed once he is revealed to be a machine powered by a Kryptonite heart. He believes himself to be the hero the people want, and the realization that he has been used drives him to stop at nothing to bring both Superman and Lex down.

I see two major fights occuring in the last 30-45 minutes of this film with a penultimate battle between Superman and Metallo, and then a show down between Superman and a crazed/battle suit armored Luthor. Keep Superman as the true shining beacon that he should always be, while introducing the "dark"/more real-world elements through Lex and Corben.

Some other quick ones:

NO KID

Lois : Tough, but not neo-feminist "everything is man's fault" (think Lana from Smallville). Basically Margot Kidder from Superman: the movie but hotter.

Perry: I honestly think that Superman Returns nailed this character. Other than not saying "Truth, Justice, and the American Way", they were spot on with him.

Jimmy: Make him younger. Make him a college intern or something more believable. But in this movie, I would invision him being the one that always believes in Superman, and doesn't buy into Lex's Metallo. He gets to display the innocence, and belief in a true right and an absolute good.

Also, have some interactions with other Planet members. Cat Grant, Ron Troupe, Steve Lombard, get them all in there in small roles. Also, no more stupid hangers-on for Lex. Give him a single assistent in the mold of Mercy from STAS, while she might harbor feelings for Lex, she doesn't show it. Have her very military-esque, and willing to throw a punch/dive in front of a bullet for her boss.

[Krug3r]

I really don't know, I'm not in favor of that all Clark is the main character, I want to go to the Cinema and see more of Superman than Clark, I don't want to see a journalist as a journalist saving the world. If you focus more on Clark as a person and not superman, Superman looses his spotlight and value.

I want SUPERMAN - Man of Steel



and not....


Clark - The Journalist who happens to be a superhero

[Krug3r]

I don't mind that superman really likes journalism and that is the real reason for becoming one, but you guys, by the way you are describing clark, seems like clark is more important than superman, and you want a clark movie

[Anubis]

Well, you need to find a balance. Supes is really three characters. Theres Clark Kent, the reporter. The face he puts on at work. The disguise. It has to be pretty convincing too. I think it was explained best in Birthright. Then there's Superman, the hero. The inspiration. The confident, strong willed, powerhouse. Then finally you got just Clark, who is a combination of the two. The Superman who you see when he's with his parents and anybody else that knows who he really is, Or when he's alone. You shouldn't spend too much time on either part of his personality, but they all have to be represented to have a good Superman movie. Supes just beating the f**k outta stuff just isn't enough.

[Krug3r]

Well, you need to find a balance. Supes is really three characters. Theres Clark Kent, the reporter. The face he puts on when he's not being Superman. Then there's Superman, the hero. Then finally you got just Clark, who is a combination of the two. You shouldn't spend too much time on Kent or Clark, but they have to represented to have a good Superman movie. Supes just beating the f**k outta stuff just isn't enough.

Yes I agree, but reading some posts here looks like these guys prefer to see a smart clark, solving crimes, that for me is contrary to the whole disguise thing

[BigBlue1055]

Well, you need to find a balance. Supes is really three characters. Theres Clark Kent, the reporter. The face he puts on at work. The disguise. It has to be pretty convincing too. I think it was explained best in Birthright. Then there's Superman, the hero. The inspiration. The confident, strong willed, powerhouse. Then finally you got just Clark, who is a combination of the two. The Superman who you see when he's with his parents and anybody else that knows who he really is, Or when he's alone. You shouldn't spend too much time on either part of his personality, but they all have to be represented to have a good Superman movie. Supes just beating the f**k outta stuff just isn't enough.

I totally agree. But what I think Superman Returns whiffed on was portraying Reporter-Clark as more of the real person. In the comics, I find it interesting to see how the artists draw the hair, that usually coorelates to who the writer views as the "real" Clark. So the SR Superman, with his gelled down hair, to me was more of the act, than Reporter-Clark who's hair was almost exactly like it was when he was on the farm. In the new movie, I really hope they make Reporter-Clark as more of the act than Superman.

[Thomas Wayne]

I'm not talking about having the movie soley about Clark. You do have to have a good balance. This thread isn't about the plot of the movie its about character portrayal and I want Clark to be the dominant personality of the two. He should be the true identity. Superman is what he uses to go save cities. He can't go save cities as Clark because he wants to be able to live a normal life. He adopted the Superman persona to be able to do both help people and live a normal life. It shouldn't be that Superman adopted the Clark persona. What sense does that make. Why? If Superman was the dominant one why would he need another identity. He would just be Superman all the time. He doesn't need Clark.

[Krug3r]

Ok Wayne I see your point of view, I noticed that we might be talking about the same thing but is two seperate contexts. I noticed you want clark more dominant in the whole Superman world..I'm talking more directed to the movie that is coming.

He is an Alien, the more he tries to be human, act as human,is just isn't.
He will always feel different.

I believe that by putting Clark as the main character you maybe contradicting the whole Superman basis. He even may want to be more human that alien, he might enjoy more to be Clark and lead a normal life...but it's against his nature.

He can't be clark...he is KAL-EL. He can't change that. Maybe a good point in the new movie is showing Superman trying to be clark, be working and trying not to be uncovered.

By the way you talk about clark I believe you are a great fan of Smallville?
That whole Clark in smallville is so much different, because there is no superman, I mean there ir no symbol yet. So he can be more brave he doesn't need to distance himself from the Symbol for disguise purpose.

[Thomas Wayne]

Ok Wayne I see your point of view, I noticed that we might be talking about the same thing but is two seperate contexts. I noticed you want clark more dominant in the whole Superman world..I'm talking more directed to the movie that is coming.

He is an Alien, the more he tries to be human, act as human,is just isn't.
He will always feel different.

I believe that by putting Clark as the main character you maybe contradicting the whole Superman basis. He even may want to be more human that alien, he might enjoy more to be Clark and lead a normal life...but it's against his nature.

He can't be clark...he is KAL-EL. He can't change that. Maybe a good point in the new movie is showing Superman trying to be clark, be working and trying not to be uncovered.

By the way you talk about clark I believe you are a great fan of Smallville?
That whole Clark in smallville is so much different, because there is no superman, I mean there ir no symbol yet. So he can be more brave he doesn't need to distance himself from the Symbol for disguise purpose.

Actually, I can't stand Smallville. I tried watching it a few years ago and didn't like it. If its going to be about Superman. Show me Superman. No, I liked Lois & Clark. Teri was the perfect Lois. Dean was the perfect Clark. They didn't have a big enough budget to do a lot of Superman stuff but their portrayls of those two charachters were perfect. I'm not trying to argue with you this is just my opinion.

[Krug3r]

Actually, I can't stand Smallville. I tried watching it a few years ago and didn't like it. If its going to be about Superman. Show me Superman. No, I liked Lois & Clark. Teri was the perfect Lois. Dean was the perfect Clark. They didn't have a big enough budget to do a lot of Superman stuff but their portrayls of those two charachters were perfect. I'm not trying to argue with you this is just my opinion.

Not at all, this is what the forum is all about.

Maybe is me being narrow minded but the way some guys are describing their clark and wanting him to be more dominante that superman I can only picture Smallville because it's all about clark. That is the Clark that happens to have superpowers, that investigates, is brave. That is what I really don't want to see in a Superman movie.

[Thomas Wayne]

I completely agree. Clark should be doing reporter type things when he is Clark. Superman is the one who is the protector. Being a reporter though does allow Clark to investigate things such as Luthor from a different perspective though. He can meet him and talk to him and get a feel for him from a different perspective.

[Lucid]

I've always thought that the best Lex Luthor characterization was the genius scientist version--an evil Albert Einstein figure--like in the Birthright comic or the animated Superman: Doomsday. Luthor still runs LexCorp, but became a billionaire due to all the patents on all of his inventions and medicines.

The "corporate thug" Lex was a product of 1980's corporate corruption. It's not the way that Luthor was originally conceived, but since corporate corruption is one of the largest problems in our world, it seems that the best route is to simply add that element to the original scientist character. Make Luthor a genius scientist who becomes a corrupt CEO--he's both, but his personality is more the squirrelly, conniving, evil scientist, just with a lot of money and power behind him, like in Birthright.

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/Himg141/scaled.php?server=141&filename=birthrightluthorne3.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

I've always thought that if you think about Superman as a story with thematic components in which the characters have been carefully designed to connect in narrative harmony, genius scientist Luthor is essential because it's the perfect contrast to Superman himself. Superman's power is in his physical gifts--physical strength, speed, flight, etc.--and Luthor's power is in his mental gifts, a genius Einstein-level intellect that he uses for evil. The key is that their power is equal. Despite Superman's astonishing power, Lex is able to compete with him through sheer intelligence. To take away that element of the character and turn him into a mere overconfident thug with a lot of money is to take away the fascinating dynamic between hero and villain, the feeling that, although they are morally opposed, they are two halves of a whole, two extraordinary creatures who are capable of achieving anything they desire due to their gifts, but they use those gifts differently because of the values that they've adopted and moral choices that they've made.

That characterization of Luthor adds such tragedy to his character because, for instance, if he had made different choices and decided to use his intellectual power for altruistic goals the way that Superman has decided to use his physical power, think of all the amazing achievements he could have bestowed on humanity (achievements that, most likely, no one but him is capable of). This question of how to use your natural gifts is central to the Superman story. The purpose of the story is to use the main character--Superman--to inspire us to use whatever natural gifts we may possess for the good of humankind, to find the "Superman" within us, if you will. Since Luthor is the primary narrative foil to this message, he must also possess a natural gift that he abuses, displaying the alternative and immoral choice. Having a lot of money and being a bully (the way that he was portrayed in Superman: The Animated Series, for instance) is not a natural gift and is not thematically consistent or meaningful.

http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/9/9e/Lex_Luthor_TV.jpg

These characters have such potential to create an entertaining as well as truly touching and powerful story and I believe that the way the characters were initially conceived was brilliant and ripe for inspiring storytelling. Superman was conceived as a classic myth story and to change Luthor into a corporate thug and take away the dynamic between hero and villain betrays the roots of Superman and the intentions of its creators as well as simplifies the story and diminishes the potential for meaning and drama.

Does anyone else agree with me or am I alone on this?

[Thomas Wayne]

I agree to a certain extent. I really think he should be all these things a little bully, definately corporate, and really smart but not to the point that he can just invent anything he wants. Hell, I'll take anything as long as it isn't real estate Lex again.

[SuperDaniel]

I've always thought that the best Lex Luthor characterization was the genius scientist version--an evil Albert Einstein figure--like in the Birthright comic or the animated Superman: Doomsday. Luthor still runs LexCorp, but became a billionaire due to all the patents on all of his inventions and disease cures.

The "corporate thug" Lex was a product of 1980's corporate corruption. It's not the way that Luthor was originally conceived, but since corporate corruption is one of the largest problems in our world, it seems that the best route is to simply add that element to the original scientist character. Make Luthor a genius scientist who becomes a corrupt CEO--he's both, but his personality is more the squirrelly, conniving, evil scientist, just with a lot of money and power behind him, like in Birthright.

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/Himg141/scaled.php?server=141&filename=birthrightluthorne3.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

I've always thought that if you think about Superman as a story with thematic components in which the characters have been carefully designed to connect in narrative harmony, genius scientist Luthor is essential because it's the perfect contrast to Superman himself. Superman's power is in his physical gifts--physical strength, speed, flight, etc.--and Luthor's power is in his mental gifts, a genius Einstein-level intellect that he uses for evil. The key is that their power is equal. Despite Superman's astonishing power, Lex is able to compete with him through sheer intelligence. To take away that element of the character and turn him into a mere overconfident thug with a lot of money is to take away the fascinating dynamic between hero and villain, the feeling that, although they are morally opposed, they are two halves of a whole, two extraordinary creatures who are capable of achieving anything they desire due to their gifts, but they use those gifts differently because of the values that they've adopted and moral choices that they've made.

That characterization of Luthor adds such tragedy to his character because, for instance, if he had made different choices and decided to use his intellectual power for altruistic goals the way that Superman has decided to use his physical power, think of all the amazing achievements he could have bestowed on humanity (achievements that, most likely, no one but him is capable of). This question of how to use your natural gifts is central to the Superman story. The purpose of the story is to use the main character--Superman--to inspire us to use whatever natural gifts we may possess for the good of humankind, to find the "Superman" within us, if you will. Since Luthor is the primary narrative foil to this message, he must also possess a natural gift that he abuses, displaying the alternative and immoral choice. Having a lot of money and being a bully (the way that he was portrayed in Superman: The Animated Series, for instance) is not a natural gift and is not thematically consistent or meaningful.

http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/9/9e/Lex_Luthor_TV.jpg

These characters have such potential to create an entertaining as well as truly touching and powerful story and I believe that the way the characters were initially conceived was brilliant and ripe for inspiring storytelling. Superman was conceived as a classic myth story and to change Luthor into a corporate thug and take away the dynamic between hero and villain betrays the roots of Superman and the intentions of its creators as well as simplifies the story and diminishes the potential for meaning and drama.

Does anyone else agree with me or am I alone on this?

I completely agree. Luthor should be an evil-scientist and corporate guy like in Birthright. He can be both. Lexcorp and scientist at the same time.

JUST NO MORE REAL-STATE PLEASE, CIA AGENTS, WHATEVER IT IS.

[DavidTyler]

Not at all, this is what the forum is all about.

Maybe is me being narrow minded but the way some guys are describing their clark and wanting him to be more dominante that superman I can only picture Smallville because it's all about clark. That is the Clark that happens to have superpowers, that investigates, is brave. That is what I really don't want to see in a Superman movie.


No one is saying the guy with the glasses is the dominant or the part that gets the most screen time....

We're saying that we want a believable Clark who is interesting enough to merit a decent amount of screen time. I don't want a bumbling goof running around pretending not to be Superman. I want Clark to act like a real person. After all Superman IS Clark Kent ... or, rather, Clark Kent IS Superman. Clark created the Superman identity - not just so he could help others, but as a way of channeling the attention for his super deeds away from his everyday personna. He needs to be a regular guy. He wants to fit in. Sure, it's exciting and freeing to be able to fly and I'm sure he enjoys that but he also wants to just fit in with the people around him.

I too want to see a lot of Superman action on screen but I also want the human part of his story and that's the man beneath the costume. That's Clark.

[DavidTyler]

I completely agree. Luthor should be an evil-scientist and corporate guy like in Birthright. He can be both. Lexcorp and scientist at the same time.

JUST NO MORE REAL-STATE PLEASE, CIA AGENTS, WHATEVER IT IS.

Uh, I don't know how to break this to you guys but Birthright wasn't where that version of Lex originated. It was Man of Steel under John Byrne and Marv Wolfman.

Actually, more Marv than John. Marv envisioned Lex as a brilliant but twisted man who parlayed his earliest inventions into the fortune he used to build his empire. From there he hired some other brilliant minds to work for Lex Corp. He's still the most brilliant among them, though.

Waid didn't invent that .... Marv Wolfman (with John Byrne) did.

[SuperDaniel]

I know...you don´t have to tell Superman's history to me. I know it very well. I was just saying that I liked the version in Birthright cause it was a mix of both.

[DavidTyler]

I know...you don´t have to tell Superman's history to me. I know it very well. I was just saying that I liked the version in Birthright cause it was a mix of both.


My point exactly.

Wolfman made him both an evil scientist and a corporate shark.

The element that Waid brought in was that Clark and Lex knew each other as teenagers. That was the pre-crisis element.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't care for the idea that Lex and Clark met in there teen years. It's okay for a T.V show like SmallVille but I don't want it as movie cannon.

[SuperDaniel]

Me neither.

[batlovescatDC]

On Smallville, contrary to what most people think, Lex was actually NOT in his teens when they met, just Clark was. Lex was a young adult. But I do agree.... whereas it worked great for Smallville (and Rosenbaum had BETTER be back for guest appearances), it shouldn't be adapted into the movies.

[SatEL]

I don't mind that superman really likes journalism and that is the real reason for becoming one, but you guys, by the way you are describing clark, seems like clark is more important than superman, and you want a clark movie

It seems like people want a Dean Cain moment were Clark is the lead and Superman is just an after thought.:csad:

[Oriin]

SatEL. I don't want to sound like I'm taking this off topic but your sig is inaccurate, Edison wasn't the first person to record sound... that was Edouard-Leon Scott :csad:

[SatEL]

SatEL. I don't want to sound like I'm taking this off topic but your sig is inaccurate, Edison wasn't the first person to record sound... that was Edouard-Leon Scott :csad:

Actually many believe that Tesla was the pioneer of sound recording but hey you never really know I mean Tesla never gets credit for his work. Besides my sig is an exact quote from the song they all laughed so whether the facts are accurate is not important as I am merly quoting a song I like.:yay:

[Oriin]

Actually many believe that Tesla was the pioneer of sound recording but hey you never really know I mean Tesla never gets credit for his work. Besides my sig is an exact quote from the song they all laughed so whether the facts are accurate is not important as I am merly quoting a song I like.:yay:

Ahh okay. Tesla was more radio, he was an interesting man, he had a weird thing for peas. The lovely Frenchmen I pointed out above was recorded in 1860 so Tesla was about 3 and a half when it was recorded ;)

[SatEL]

Ahh okay. Tesla was more radio, he was an interesting man, he had a weird thing for peas. The lovely Frenchmen I pointed out above was recorded in 1860 so Tesla was about 3 and a half when it was recorded ;)

You should know the french man you speak of surely was able to record sound but was unable to play it back, it wasnt until later that Edison recorded and played back sound which is why many credit him for the success of modern sound recordings because in a way he did, of course we all know Edison and Tesla were rivals and many believe Edison was more in with the investors of that time making him more acceptable than the crazy scientist many believe Tesla to be but as previously stated many believe Tesla to be the first to perfect sound recordings.:cwink:

[Oriin]

You should know the french man you speak of surely was able to record sound but was unable to play it back, it wasnt until later that Edison recorded and played back sound which is why many credit him for the success of modern sound recordings because in a way he did, of course we all know Edison and Tesla were rivals and many believe Edison was more in with the investors of that time making him more acceptable than the crazy scientist many believe Tesla to be but as previously stated many believe Tesla to be the first to perfect sound recordings.:cwink:Edison was science's greatest *******, he stole other inventions made some minor changes and patented them, after that he sued anyone who tried to use the original. AC or DC battle showed the real Edison.

Anyways, Dark Superman is a bad idea.

[DavidTyler]

It seems like people want a Dean Cain moment were Clark is the lead and Superman is just an after thought.:csad:

No one is saying that.

At least not the way you're putting it.

We want Clark to be both Superman and the guy in glasses.

The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense for the person he grew up being to become some kind of disguise for the person he just decided to become.

In other words, Clark is who he was his whole life. Superman is a personna he adopted when he reached adulthood.

We aren't asking for the Guy In Glasses to become the main focus of the film. We just want him to be realistic, not a nerd, and to be interesting enough for us to care about him. Dean's Clark was just that. Admittedly, they gave his Superman very little to do but his Clark was spot on what a lot of us would like to see.

Now, I'm sure there are a couple of posters out there who will have a vague recollection of Dean's version being some kind of macho womanizer... but you couldn't be farter from the truth.

Dean's Clark was a down to earth 'everyman'. He was quiet and a bit shy and more than willing to take a back seat to Lois from time to time. The thing is that he was real. He wasn't some kind of nebbish. He wasn't a clumsy buffoon. He wasn't comic relief. He was a regular guy. Kind of introverted, could experience joy, could have his feelings hurt, passionate about some things. Just a regular guy. We can identify with him.

I can't identify with Donner's Clark. I doubt many of us can.

And Dean's interpretation of the character is pretty close to what I want to see in the next movie.

[DavidTyler]

It seems like people want a Dean Cain moment were Clark is the lead and Superman is just an after thought.:csad:

No one is saying that.

At least not the way you're putting it.

We want Clark to be both Superman and the guy in glasses.

The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense for the person he grew up being to become some kind of disguise for the person he just decided to become.

In other words, Clark is who he was his whole life. Superman is a personna he adopted when he reached adulthood.

We aren't asking for the Guy In Glasses to become the main focus of the film. We just want him to be realistic, not a nerd, and to be interesting enough for us to care about him. Dean's Clark was just that. Admittedly, they gave his Superman very little to do but his Clark was spot on what a lot of us would like to see.

Now, I'm sure there are a couple of posters out there who will have a vague recollection of Dean's version being some kind of macho womanizer... but you couldn't be farther from the truth.

Dean's Clark was a down to earth 'everyman'. He was quiet and a bit shy and more than willing to take a back seat to Lois from time to time. The thing is that he was real. He wasn't some kind of nebbish. He wasn't a clumsy buffoon. He wasn't comic relief. He was a regular guy. Kind of introverted, could experience joy, could have his feelings hurt, passionate about some things. Just a regular guy. We can identify with him.

I can't identify with Donner's Clark. I doubt many of us can.

And Dean's interpretation of the character is pretty close to what I want to see in the next movie.

[DavidTyler]

It seems like people want a Dean Cain moment were Clark is the lead and Superman is just an after thought.:csad:

No one is saying that.

At least not the way you're putting it.

We want Clark to be both Superman and the guy in glasses.

The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense for the person he grew up being to become some kind of disguise for the person he just decided to become.

In other words, Clark is who he was his whole life. Superman is a personna he adopted when he reached adulthood.

We aren't asking for the Guy In Glasses to become the main focus of the film. We just want him to be realistic, not a nerd, and to be interesting enough for us to care about him. Dean's Clark was just that. Admittedly, they gave his Superman very little to do but his Clark was spot on what a lot of us would like to see.

Now, I'm sure there are a couple of posters out there who will have a vague recollection of Dean's version being some kind of macho womanizer... but you couldn't be farther from the truth.

Dean's Clark was a down to earth 'everyman'. He was quiet and a bit shy and more than willing to take a back seat to Lois from time to time. The thing is that he was real. He wasn't some kind of nebbish. He wasn't a clumsy buffoon. He wasn't comic relief. He was a regular guy. Kind of introverted, could experience joy, could have his feelings hurt, passionate about some things. Just a regular guy. We can identify with him.

I can't identify with Donner's Clark. I doubt many of us can.

And Dean's interpretation of the character is pretty close to what I want to see in the next movie.

[DavidTyler]

deleted ... double post

[batlovescatDC]

deleted ... double post

lol. try quadruple post. it's posted another three times.

[BigBlue1055]

That characterization of Luthor adds such tragedy to his character because, for instance, if he had made different choices and decided to use his intellectual power for altruistic goals the way that Superman has decided to use his physical power, think of all the amazing achievements he could have bestowed on humanity (achievements that, most likely, no one but him is capable of). This question of how to use your natural gifts is central to the Superman story. The purpose of the story is to use the main character--Superman--to inspire us to use whatever natural gifts we may possess for the good of humankind, to find the "Superman" within us, if you will. Since Luthor is the primary narrative foil to this message, he must also possess a natural gift that he abuses, displaying the alternative and immoral choice. Having a lot of money and being a bully (the way that he was portrayed in Superman: The Animated Series, for instance) is not a natural gift and is not thematically consistent or meaningful.

http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/9/9e/Lex_Luthor_TV.jpg

These characters have such potential to create an entertaining as well as truly touching and powerful story and I believe that the way the characters were initially conceived was brilliant and ripe for inspiring storytelling. Superman was conceived as a classic myth story and to change Luthor into a corporate thug and take away the dynamic between hero and villain betrays the roots of Superman and the intentions of its creators as well as simplifies the story and diminishes the potential for meaning and drama.

Does anyone else agree with me or am I alone on this?

While I completely agree with your assessment of Luthor, and how he should be played in the movies, I disagree with the bolded statement. While the Animated Series might not have shown Luthor in a lab coat, they did display his intellect especially in the Justice League series. The episodes such as when Luthor saves the world with his mind from Amazo, or when he bonds with Brainiac, or even when he has Metron take him to the Source Wall, all of them display the "12th degree" intelligence that Luthor must have to truly combat Superman. I honestly believe that the versions of Lex that we've seen in Birthright, Superman:The Animated Series, and Lex Luthor:Man of Steel should be the basis for this character in the reboot movie.

[ReTrO JuNkIe 42]

While I completely agree with your assessment of Luthor, and how he should be played in the movies, I disagree with the bolded statement. While the Animated Series might not have shown Luthor in a lab coat, they did display his intellect especially in the Justice League series. The episodes such as when Luthor saves the world with his mind from Amazo, or when he bonds with Brainiac, or even when he has Metron take him to the Source Wall, all of them display the "12th degree" intelligence that Luthor must have to truly combat Superman. I honestly believe that the versions of Lex that we've seen in Birthright, Superman:The Animated Series, and Lex Luthor:Man of Steel should be the basis for this character in the reboot movie.


I agree with you 100%

[Lucid]

----

[Frodo]

No one is saying that.

At least not the way you're putting it.

We want Clark to be both Superman and the guy in glasses.

The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense for the person he grew up being to become some kind of disguise for the person he just decided to become.

In other words, Clark is who he was his whole life. Superman is a personna he adopted when he reached adulthood.

We aren't asking for the Guy In Glasses to become the main focus of the film. We just want him to be realistic, not a nerd, and to be interesting enough for us to care about him. Dean's Clark was just that. Admittedly, they gave his Superman very little to do but his Clark was spot on what a lot of us would like to see.

Now, I'm sure there are a couple of posters out there who will have a vague recollection of Dean's version being some kind of macho womanizer... but you couldn't be farther from the truth.

Dean's Clark was a down to earth 'everyman'. He was quiet and a bit shy and more than willing to take a back seat to Lois from time to time. The thing is that he was real. He wasn't some kind of nebbish. He wasn't a clumsy buffoon. He wasn't comic relief. He was a regular guy. Kind of introverted, could experience joy, could have his feelings hurt, passionate about some things. Just a regular guy. We can identify with him.

I can't identify with Donner's Clark. I doubt many of us can.

And Dean's interpretation of the character is pretty close to what I want to see in the next movie.

I agree with this . As Superman he can be a leader and the guiding light of humanity but as Clark he can love journalism and writing . I can't see why he can't be both. Plus I think it would be an interesting aspect to his character that he would like to write the great American novel or have rolemodels in the newspaper world. I think the character needs different dimensions to him. He's not angst ridden like Batman or Spiderman but he's not a single minded robot either. He was raised with humans , it's only natural ,regardless of his birthright, that he would have human desires even with his abilities. I think his abilities are what sets him apart from everyone else and what makes him special , but in his mind he doesn't see himself as above humans . He see's himself as one of them in spirit. I think this feeling is what causes tension between Jor El and his son. This would be my take anyway .

[SuperDaniel]

I don´t like Lex and Clark being friends when they are kids. That works for Smallville and that's it. That's probably the only reason Waid did it. Even THE KENTS and young CLARK look like Tom Welling, John Schneider and Annette O'Toole.

Also i don't like soul vision, Superman being a vegetarian, the whole fake invasion and in the end when Lex Luthor has kryptonite powers. That was just too much.

Birthright was good, the final pages were amazing but, IMO, Man of Steel is a better origin because I really love Byrne's Krypton.

[SuperDaniel]

I agree with this . As Superman he can be a leader and the guiding light of humanity but as Clark he can love journalism and writing . I can't see why he can't be both. Plus I think it would be an interesting aspect to his character that he would like to write the great American novel or have rolemodels in the newspaper world. I think the character needs different dimensions to him. He's not angst ridden like Batman or Spiderman but he's not a single minded robot either. He was raised with humans , it's only natural ,regardless of his birthright, that he would have human desires even with his abilities. I think his abilities are what sets him apart from everyone else and what makes him special , but in his mind he doesn't see himself as above humans . He see's himself as one of them in spirit. I think this feeling is what causes tension between Jor El and his son. This would be my take anyway .
Well, I think this quest for truth Kal-el got from his father so that's an interesting aspect, IMO.

Jor-el's quest for truth saved his son and Clark's quest for truth turned him into a reporter who fights for the same thing as Superman but with words.

Superman and Clark are both and the same, IMO, and diferent aspects of the same personality. The way i see it, the world just doesnt think Superman has a secret identity because he doesnt wear a mask.

[Thomas Wayne]

No one is saying the guy with the glasses is the dominant or the part that gets the most screen time....

We're saying that we want a believable Clark who is interesting enough to merit a decent amount of screen time. I don't want a bumbling goof running around pretending not to be Superman. I want Clark to act like a real person. After all Superman IS Clark Kent ... or, rather, Clark Kent IS Superman. Clark created the Superman identity - not just so he could help others, but as a way of channeling the attention for his super deeds away from his everyday personna. He needs to be a regular guy. He wants to fit in. Sure, it's exciting and freeing to be able to fly and I'm sure he enjoys that but he also wants to just fit in with the people around him.

I too want to see a lot of Superman action on screen but I also want the human part of his story and that's the man beneath the costume. That's Clark.

Thank you! Exactly how i see it too.

I don't care for the idea that Lex and Clark met in there teen years. It's okay for a T.V show like SmallVille but I don't want it as movie cannon.

Agreed!

It seems like people want a Dean Cain moment were Clark is the lead and Superman is just an after thought.:csad:

See below for me

No one is saying that.

At least not the way you're putting it.

We want Clark to be both Superman and the guy in glasses.

The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense for the person he grew up being to become some kind of disguise for the person he just decided to become.

In other words, Clark is who he was his whole life. Superman is a personna he adopted when he reached adulthood.

We aren't asking for the Guy In Glasses to become the main focus of the film. We just want him to be realistic, not a nerd, and to be interesting enough for us to care about him. Dean's Clark was just that. Admittedly, they gave his Superman very little to do but his Clark was spot on what a lot of us would like to see.

Now, I'm sure there are a couple of posters out there who will have a vague recollection of Dean's version being some kind of macho womanizer... but you couldn't be farter from the truth.

Dean's Clark was a down to earth 'everyman'. He was quiet and a bit shy and more than willing to take a back seat to Lois from time to time. The thing is that he was real. He wasn't some kind of nebbish. He wasn't a clumsy buffoon. He wasn't comic relief. He was a regular guy. Kind of introverted, could experience joy, could have his feelings hurt, passionate about some things. Just a regular guy. We can identify with him.

I can't identify with Donner's Clark. I doubt many of us can.

And Dean's interpretation of the character is pretty close to what I want to see in the next movie.

^ Seems like we have the same ideas and feel the same way about Clark/Superman

I agree with this . As Superman he can be a leader and the guiding light of humanity but as Clark he can love journalism and writing . I can't see why he can't be both. Plus I think it would be an interesting aspect to his character that he would like to write the great American novel or have rolemodels in the newspaper world. I think the character needs different dimensions to him. He's not angst ridden like Batman or Spiderman but he's not a single minded robot either. He was raised with humans , it's only natural ,regardless of his birthright, that he would have human desires even with his abilities. I think his abilities are what sets him apart from everyone else and what makes him special , but in his mind he doesn't see himself as above humans . He see's himself as one of them in spirit. I think this feeling is what causes tension between Jor El and his son. This would be my take anyway .

Agreed

I don´t like Lex and Clark being friends when they are kids. That works for Smallville and that's it. That's probably the only reason Waid did it. Even THE KENTS and young CLARK look like Tom Welling, John Schneider and Annette O'Toole.

Also i don't like soul vision, Superman being a vegetarian, the whole fake invasion and in the end when Lex Luthor has kryptonite powers. That was just too much.

Birthright was good, the final pages were amazing but, IMO, Man of Steel is a better origin because I really love Byrne's Krypton.

Agreed

[DavidTyler]

Was just reading a post on the reboot casting thread and was concerned about a comment there. I want to respond to it here because it directly relates as to how I feel the character should be handled.

I DO NOT want Superman portrayed as a god. He is not Christ. He is not Moses. He is a tuned up guy who could be more closely compared to a fireman or police officer. He's here to help - not to lead. He's not here to impose his morals. I don't want to see some hack write another script with allusions to Superman's supposed divinity.

Short and sweet - he's a guy with strange powers and abilities.... not a messiah.

[The Guard]

I'm probably the only person who wants to see something that is somewhat out of character for Luthor. A Luthor who's not corrupt and evil. Someone who is a shining example of humanity to start out the franchise (not the "I will clearly be a villain soon given my obvious flaws" character from SMALLVILLE), but who, because of his interactions with Superman and his desire to be more than just a man over the course of a franchise, displays more and more human frailty and devolves as a human being as he evolves into a supervillain, becoming the Luthor we know. Similar to SMALLVILLE, but not so melodramatic a change in character. Think about it. If Superman and Luthor had worked together, perhaps they could have changed the world. The fact that they ended up as enemies and what that cost the world should be the tragedy of the Superman franchise. Which obviously means he can't be the villain. At first.

[Lucid]

----

[DavidTyler]

I'm probably the only person who wants to see something that is somewhat out of character for Luthor. A Luthor who's not corrupt and evil. Someone who is a shining example of humanity to start out the franchise (not the "I will clearly be a villain soon given my obvious flaws" character from SMALLVILLE), but who, because of his interactions with Superman and his desire to be more than just a man over the course of a franchise, displays more and more human frailty and devolves as a human being as he evolves into a supervillain, becoming the Luthor we know. Similar to SMALLVILLE, but not so melodramatic a change in character. Think about it. If Superman and Luthor had worked together, perhaps they could have changed the world. The fact that they ended up as enemies and what that cost the world should be the tragedy of the Superman franchise. Which obviously means he can't be the villain. At first.

But this is the story SMALLVILLE was telling. I watched all but the last two years. When they screwed up continuity by bringing in Lois, I broke with the show. BUT... Luthor was a tragic figure in those early episodes. He tried to do the right thing but circumstances always forced the darker side of his nature. As an example: Lex trying to help the Kent's with the debt on the farm and Jonathan refusing to trust him to the point of denouncing him in front of others. The poor guy couldn't get a break.

The 'I am destined to be the supervillain' was not as rushed a metamorphis as you may think. It was a sad but gradual thing over the course of several seasons.

[TheBatman1979]

I always liked the idea that Kal El was sent here because he could rule the planet, the idea that kryptonions aren't the peace loving people they always appeared to be is more appealing. So you would have a natural sadistic super being who's only good because he's been brought up by loving human parents. The possibility that he could turn would be a great plotline for the future which could include Batman.
Also i'd have Lex in the first movie as Clarks friend and develop a story arc over 3 films sort of the way smallvile did.
Lois would be his boss for now with no love interest but *****y comment made about certain woman Clark dates.
Clark would be confident in his abilities (workwise) but not cocky, plus i'd raise jimmy's age so they could be drinking buds. In bars is where the Lois/Clark thing can be hinted at

Okay, I'm not trying to be mean here but...

That is the worst idea I have ever heard for the characterization of the Superman family of characters.

[The Guard]

But this is the story SMALLVILLE was telling. I watched all but the last two years. When they screwed up continuity by bringing in Lois, I broke with the show. BUT... Luthor was a tragic figure in those early episodes. He tried to do the right thing but circumstances always forced the darker side of his nature. As an example: Lex trying to help the Kent's with the debt on the farm and Jonathan refusing to trust him to the point of denouncing him in front of others. The poor guy couldn't get a break.

The 'I am destined to be the supervillain' was not as rushed a metamorphis as you may think. It was a sad but gradual thing over the course of several seasons.

It's not that it was rushed, it just didn't feel all that subtle or appropriate to me, given what they were going for. I stopped watching after Season Two. I just wasn't impressed with the portrayal of Lex Luthor as someone who couldn't control his dark side more than anything. They didn't so much develop him as they revealed what was probably already there, given the hints about his past.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Was just reading a post on the reboot casting thread and was concerned about a comment there. I want to respond to it here because it directly relates as to how I feel the character should be handled.

I DO NOT want Superman portrayed as a god. He is not Christ. He is not Moses. He is a tuned up guy who could be more closely compared to a fireman or police officer. He's here to help - not to lead. He's not here to impose his morals. I don't want to see some hack write another script with allusions to Superman's supposed divinity.

Short and sweet - he's a guy with strange powers and abilities.... not a messiah.:applaud

[Anubis]

I always liked the idea that Kal El was sent here because he could rule the planet, the idea that kryptonions aren't the peace loving people they always appeared to be is more appealing. So you would have a natural sadistic super being who's only good because he's been brought up by loving human parents. The possibility that he could turn would be a great plotline for the future which could include Batman.
Also i'd have Lex in the first movie as Clarks friend and develop a story arc over 3 films sort of the way smallvile did.
Lois would be his boss for now with no love interest but *****y comment made about certain woman Clark dates.
Clark would be confident in his abilities (workwise) but not cocky, plus i'd raise jimmy's age so they could be drinking buds. In bars is where the Lois/Clark thing can be hinted at

If that's the sorta thing you want, Robert Kirkman's Invincible is currently in development.

[DavidTyler]

:applaud

Thank you.

And I like your politics, too.

[COMPO]

My version of Luthor is this:

He is corporate billionaire owns LexCorp philantropist and loved by the people and he loves that the people love him, he wants them to love him. He creates Team Luthor to help police Metropolis. In the first film, he is a charming, suave yet does have his ruthless side. He charges the city a small fee to fund the Team Luthor. And his obsession in killing Superman is more him being taken out of the limelight. He's infuriated by the fact that Superman saves people better than him, he's loved by the people even though he isn't one of them, and he's saving people for free. He wants Superman dead because he wants it to be how it was were he was top dog and also he doesn't believe that someone would do something for free out of the goodness of his heart so he asks Superman to join Team Luthor... after staging a crisis which gets one of his men killed. Superman declines taking Luthor in but he gets out and finds the people have turned the backs on him in the light of the news. He then, makes Metallo out of his experiments to help people with fatal injuries. He then tries to kill Superman to get him out of the way and have Team Luthor stop Metallo, unable to Superman has to stop him which causes him even more anger that not only can't he control Superman he can't control his own machine and becomes more self loathing, and obsessed in Superman's demise.

[p4poetic]

No one is saying that.

At least not the way you're putting it.

We want Clark to be both Superman and the guy in glasses.

The thing is that it makes absolutely no sense for the person he grew up being to become some kind of disguise for the person he just decided to become.

In other words, Clark is who he was his whole life. Superman is a personna he adopted when he reached adulthood.

We aren't asking for the Guy In Glasses to become the main focus of the film. We just want him to be realistic, not a nerd, and to be interesting enough for us to care about him. Dean's Clark was just that. Admittedly, they gave his Superman very little to do but his Clark was spot on what a lot of us would like to see.

Now, I'm sure there are a couple of posters out there who will have a vague recollection of Dean's version being some kind of macho womanizer... but you couldn't be farter from the truth.

Dean's Clark was a down to earth 'everyman'. He was quiet and a bit shy and more than willing to take a back seat to Lois from time to time. The thing is that he was real. He wasn't some kind of nebbish. He wasn't a clumsy buffoon. He wasn't comic relief. He was a regular guy. Kind of introverted, could experience joy, could have his feelings hurt, passionate about some things. Just a regular guy. We can identify with him.

I can't identify with Donner's Clark. I doubt many of us can.

And Dean's interpretation of the character is pretty close to what I want to see in the next movie.

I adore you. That's exactly how I feel.

I find the macho womanizer 'memory' humorous, considering he was a virgin and didn't have sex until he married Lois. In fact, he was very uncomfortable around women who fawned over him or were checking him out (Cat, etc). I think people misinterpret the fact that he has a banging body, so they assume otherwise. He's rather nonchalant about it; one of my favorite moments is in the pilot, and Lois comments how he eats like an 8 year old (his refrigerator was full of junk food).

I like John Shea's Lex Luther myself. I don't know what it was, but he just had something that Kevin Spacy/Gene Hackman didn't have.

[MichaelEsquire]

The Lois and Clark series took a lot of ideas from the John Bryne portrayal of Clark which in my mind is one of the best interpretations of the character for the modern age. With all due respect to Reeve's absolutely memorable performances that saw him easily change into two different and distinct characters, the overly goofy Clark Kent might not be passable. Routh was able to do it but it's not like he was extremely nerdy. He just happened to be a little socially awkward.

[ReTrO JuNkIe 42]

Was just reading a post on the reboot casting thread and was concerned about a comment there. I want to respond to it here because it directly relates as to how I feel the character should be handled.

I DO NOT want Superman portrayed as a god. He is not Christ. He is not Moses. He is a tuned up guy who could be more closely compared to a fireman or police officer. He's here to help - not to lead. He's not here to impose his morals. I don't want to see some hack write another script with allusions to Superman's supposed divinity.

Short and sweet - he's a guy with strange powers and abilities.... not a messiah.


I agree I mean if people wanna see him as a leader its that he leads by example, no more christ comparisons, he's an alien who was fortunate enough to find a planet that he could live on after his was destroyed

[TruerToTheCore]

Was just reading a post on the reboot casting thread and was concerned about a comment there. I want to respond to it here because it directly relates as to how I feel the character should be handled.

I DO NOT want Superman portrayed as a god. He is not Christ. He is not Moses. He is a tuned up guy who could be more closely compared to a fireman or police officer. He's here to help - not to lead. He's not here to impose his morals. I don't want to see some hack write another script with allusions to Superman's supposed divinity.

Short and sweet - he's a guy with strange powers and abilities.... not a messiah.

It seems you have confused Superman with Spider-Man :nono:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Nah, that was Bryan Singer.

[TruerToTheCore]

Well, he did, too.

TOo many people do these days.

Just a few understand "Superman".

[DavidTyler]

Well, he did, too.

TOo many people do these days.

Just a few understand "Superman".

The 'Superman' I think you identify with hasn't been the character in several decades.

And, like I've told you before, I've been reading and experiencing Superman for quite a long time. I would hazard a guess that I have a REALLY good understanding of the character.

[Michael Corleone]

Well, he did, too.

TOo many people do these days.

Just a few understand "Superman".

Only according to your standards. Not everyone has the same view on Superman.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't think that thats it. You just want to see the same version of Superman on the bigscreen over and over again. I finally want to see the different completely updated version of him and his world on the bigscreen for a change.

The funny thing is Singer was mostly copying Donner but he decided to make Superman whine a little more. I want a kickass Superman but I don't like the destiny thing, it's overused and personally I just don't like it when it comes to Superman.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose.

[TruerToTheCore]

The 'Superman' I think you identify with hasn't been the character in several decades.

And, like I've told you before, I've been reading and experiencing Superman for quite a long time. I would hazard a guess that I have a REALLY good understanding of the character.

You have grown away from the character.

You have to move on, not change the character.

[Michael Corleone]

You have grown away from the character.

You have to move on, not change the character.

Apparently your word is Gospel?

[TruerToTheCore]

Only according to your standards. Not everyone has the same view on Superman.

Waid, Siegel, Morrison, Millar, Maggin, Bates, Wein, Weisinger, Binder ... had all different views on Superman, yet they wrote them true to the essence, true to the core of the character.

[TruerToTheCore]

Apparently your word is Gospel?

Well, ten years ago I was a Simpsons maniac, but now I have outgrown them. Yet I don't demand them to be changed. Same goes for Donald Duck.

Crazy, isn't it?

[Michael Corleone]

Waid, Siegel, Morrison, Millar, Maggin, Bates, Wein, Weisinger, Binder ... had all different views on Superman, yet they wrote them true to the essence, true to the core of the character.

And how is that different than what I just said?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Well, ten years ago I was a Simpsons maniac, but now I have outgrown them. Yet I don't demand them to be changed. Same goes for Donald Duck.

Crazy, isn't it?What the f**k are you talking about?

[TruerToTheCore]

And how is that different than what I just said?

Don't know.

[Michael Corleone]

Well, ten years ago I was a Simpsons maniac, but now I have outgrown them. Yet I don't demand them to be changed. Same goes for Donald Duck.

Crazy, isn't it?

No one is demanding the character change. But to say the character hasn't changed over the years is a very shortsighted perspective. The character has been evolving in different directions ever since it's inception.

[TruerToTheCore]

What the f**k are you talking about?

That you should never changed the essence of the character. Byrne's Superman was a big mistake.

[TruerToTheCore]

No one is demanding the character change. But to say the character hasn't changed over the years is a very shortsighted perspective. The character has been evolving in different directions ever since it's inception.

Superman being an ordinary guy with Superpowers is a 180° change of the concept. It's an inversion of the core concept not an expansion!

[Michael Corleone]

That you should never changed the essence of the character. Byrne's Superman was a big mistake.

Byrne didn't change the essence of the character, he changed aspects of the characters origin and some personality traits. The "essence" or fundamentals of the character never changed.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That you should never changed the essence of the character. Byrne's Superman was a big mistake.We are just going to have to agree to disagree. You like oldschool Superman and I like new school Superman and want him to finally be featured in a bigscreen liveaction movie.

[Michael Corleone]

Superman being an ordinary guy with Superpowers is a 180° change of the concept. It's an inversion of the core concept not an expansion!

No, that's changing a character trait. That didn't completely destroy the character on any fundamental level. It just made some of the specifics different. The character of Superman remained very much the same. Also, the character isn't even THAT character anymore. The character changed yet again after doing it several times since MOS.

[Michael Corleone]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. You like oldschool Superman and I like new school Superman and want him to finally be featured in a bigscreen liveaction movie.

It's funny, because I enjoy all incarnations of the character. He can't accept anyone else having a different opinion than his and dismisses it as wrong.

[TruerToTheCore]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. You like oldschool Superman and I like new school Superman and want him to finally be featured in a bigscreen liveaction movie.

And I want finally the true authentic Superman on screen in a good movie. It's been 30 years and even then it was heavily flawed. Clark Kent should not be so much an "idiot" he should be more like a nerd/everyman. And Luthor should not be a campy real estate speculator.

The "new school" Superman (who was neither "Superman" nor even a real, confident man) is already dying out in the comics. You had two live action-series and now it's enough. Too late for a movie based on obsolete concepts. That would've been 10 years ago.

[TruerToTheCore]

No, that's changing a character trait. That didn't completely destroy the character on any fundamental level. It just made some of the specifics different. The character of Superman remained very much the same. Also, the character isn't even THAT character anymore. The character changed yet again after doing it several times since MOS.

Before Byrne: Superman beging the real identity, confident, male wishfulfillment, master genius and the undisputed number one in the world
After Byrne: Clark Kent being the real identity, Clark Kent being a successful yuppie (how relatable), Superman an "act", totally insecure, overgrown "Superboy", usually outsmarted by his enemies (Luthor) and allies (Batman). Later he became just a "farmboy" with powers and the intellect of a potato (in the early years he was at least "street smart")

No they did absolutely not destroy the character's fundaments. :hehe:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm bored. Goodbye.

[Michael Corleone]

Before Byrne: Superman beging the real identity, confident, male wishfulfillment, master genius and the undisputed number one in the world
After Byrne: Clark Kent being the real identity, Clark Kent being a successful yuppie (how relatable), Superman an "act", totally insecure, overgrown "Superboy", usually outsmarted by his enemies (Luthor) and allies (Batman). Later he became just a "farmboy" with powers and the intellect of a potato (in the early years he was at least "street smart")

No they did absolutely not destroy the character's fundaments. :hehe:

Yeah, much of that is based on your own personal view of the characterization. That doesn't make it the definitive view. I'm tired of this anyway. I can't have a conversation with someone that is just dismissive of any view that doesn't mirror his, it's a little too childish for my taste.

[SuperDaniel]

I really didn't see these traits in Byrne's Superman, Truer. He is still was the same amazing inspirational character he's always been.

The only mistake Byrne commited regarding Superman IMO was making him kill the villains from the Phantom Zone.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't like Batman or Superman to kill. Hell, I still don't like the "not saving him" scene in BB. I'm just hardcore about the not killing thing.