Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

[Lead Cenobite]

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

[mcallima]

I've really never understood why Lex can't be a a scientist AND a business tycoon. Lex should be Dean Kamen on PCP.

[SuperFerret]

How about Lex as a scientist CEO and Superman is Clark is Superman is the real person? Like in the comics.

[Lead Cenobite]

I'm open to Lex as both a businessman and scientist/inventor, but what if he were just a scientist/inventor? Would you give the movie a chance as long as there was a chance that it had an interesting plot and plenty of action?

[SuperFerret]

Yeah, but I'd still prefer a more modern Lex, which is a combo of the two. Intelligent and ambitious in both science and industry.

[Frankenmation]

I have the feeling that there's going to be yet another furious "Pre-Crisis Vs Post-Crisis Superman" argument, but honestly I agree with the original poster. There's no reason why we can't have elements from all of Superman's interpretations in the movie.

[Kurosawa]

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

There is no general consensus on that or much of anything involving Superman because there is such a fierce schism within the Superman fanbase. You can talk to two people who both say they love Superman and they will not agree on a single thing, and often disagree in a very nasty way. Any number of arguments I myself have had with Byrne/Post Crisis shippers as I defend Siegel and Shusters original vision and what it grew into is proof positive of that. Geoff Johns is trying in the comics to make a version that draws from the best of all the eras and if Nolan will use a similar tactic if he handles Superman like he handled Batman. As much as Byrne's character made me sick, there is an idea or two from that era I am willing to accept as long as the classic Superman elements are also present. I won't apologize-if I could have a Superman movie made exactly to my specifications then it would be pure Bronze Age with some of the Golden Age elements mixed in and not apologetic at all, which I feel too many superhero movies are. But it's not and I expect any smart filmmaker (and Nolan is one of the smartest) to use any elements that work for their story and make the character work.

[Lead Cenobite]

Maybe I'm wrong, but atleast around here, it seems like the Byrne shippers are the majority. There's a poll for which Lex they should use in the movie, and businessman Lex has a pretty big lead. I guess there's no way of knowing if those who voted Lexcorp Lex are post crisis fans in general, but that's what I'm going on, plus the fact that I've followed these boards for a while.

What inspired this topic is someone said that Lois should be tall and athletic because she's a general's daughter. It's the automatic assumption that they'd use a post crisis concept like General Sam Lane that led to the idea that Lois should be army tough.

Overall, I'm in favor of a more pre-crisis interpretation that maybe uses a few post crisis ideas. I dunno, maybe it's because I hate Lois and Clark and that's the show that introduced me to the post crisis stuff, but I'm not a big fan of Lex being some big shot who owns Metropolis or Clark as some beefy hunk that Cat Grant drools over or Lois calling Clark "Smallville". In my mind, it's not classic Superman and it's trying to hard to be hip, sexy, and modern. The true Lex Luthor is a mad scientist, not a businessman who hires scientists and inventors to do all the grunt work for him. That's the character he was for about 50 years and it doesn't seem right to make such heavy changes so late in the game. Same goes for sexy jock Clark. Clark is supposed to be mild mannered, not the most interesting guy in the room, or the hunk all the ladies are drooling over. Everything about it just screams "wrong" to me.

Modernization should be about refining the existing elements of the mythos, not giving them Bizarro-world reinterpretations. Save making Lex president for an Elseworlds. It's just an outlandish concept to shock people and garner sales. If you want a businessman/politician villain, create a new villain.

[Kurosawa]

Maybe I'm wrong, but atleast around here, it seems like the Byrne shippers are the majority. There's a poll for which Lex they should use in the movie, and businessman Lex has a pretty big lead. I guess there's no way of knowing if those who voted Lexcorp Lex are post crisis fans in general, but that's what I'm going on, plus the fact that I've followed these boards for a while.

What inspired this topic is someone said that Lois should be tall and athletic because she's a general's daughter. It's the automatic assumption that they'd use a post crisis concept like General Sam Lane that led to the idea that Lois should be army tough.

Overall, I'm in favor of a more pre-crisis interpretation that maybe uses a few post crisis ideas. I dunno, maybe it's because I hate Lois and Clark and that's the show that introduced me to the post crisis stuff, but I'm not a big fan of Lex being some big shot who owns Metropolis or Clark as some beefy hunk that Cat Grant drools over or Lois calling Clark "Smallville". In my mind, it's not classic Superman and it's trying to hard to be hip, sexy, and modern. The true Lex Luthor is a mad scientist, not a businessman who hires scientists and inventors to do all the grunt work for him. That's the character he was for about 50 years and it doesn't seem right to make such heavy changes so late in the game. Same goes for sexy jock Clark. Clark is supposed to be mild mannered, not the most interesting guy in the room, or the hunk all the ladies are drooling over. Everything about it just screams "wrong" to me.

Modernization should be about refining the existing elements of the mythos, not giving them Bizarro-world reinterpretations. Save making Lex president for an Elseworlds. It's just an outlandish concept to shock people and garner sales. If you want a businessman/politician villain, create a new villain.

This site is mostly made of of people who know very little about comics and those who do follow comics skew much more towards stuff from the last 20 years or so. There is actually a strong amount of disdain towards anyone who defends earlier comics or is a fan of them. I can think of less than 10 fans who post here regularly who know much about comics history or Pre-Crisis comics and defend them. Characters like Barry Allen and Hal Jordan are hated quite a bit here and to defend them is to ask for a negative response. I believe what they call fans of tradition who appreciate older characters and comics "nostalgia douches". So those polls are not surprising. Most of the rhetoric you hear from Byrne-shippers is what they were taught by DC: that anything from the Silver-Age is automatically retarded, that every story was Beppo the Super-Monkey or Jimmy Olsen, Turtle Boy, that Superman's power level was absurd and that Luthor was a stereotypical mad scientist who was out to get Superman because his hair fell out.

Lois has always been tough, don't know if that means she has to be a particular size. Under Siegel and Shuster she was always brave and career-orientated and shared many of the same morals and concerns as Superman. I have no use for General Thunderbolt Lane as it, much like Corporate CEO Luthor is a shameless Marvel rip-off, and jock Clark makes me sick as it represents a complete rejection of Siegel and Shusters Clark, and since Clark represented them, a rejection of them. My ideal Lex is the complex, three-dimensional fallen friend that was brilliantly developed by Maggin, a villain of depth that rivaled Doom or Magneto in his substance, not a hackneyed Kingpin swipe. And yes, I HATE HATE HATE Lois calling Clark "Smallville". I never want to see that again.

And when you mention Bizarro-world reinterpretations, that is EXACTLY what Byrne did as every core concept that made Superman such a huge success for 50 years was stood on it's head as Byrne turned Superman into what I feel was a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid. The extreme naivete and farmboy angle was cribbed completely from Colossus and the never ending drone of "heartwarming" home scenes with the Kents was ripped off of Spider-Man. So I have to say you are 100% correct in your assessments.

A great piece I read elsewhere goes like this:

Question 1

Superman discovers that Lex Luthor is formulating some plot against him. So he confronts Lex and says:


* A
"Oh, No! You're tricking everybody! I'll never be able to stop you!" (Grabs Lex by throat) "What are you up to now? You'd better tell me, or so help me, I'll..."


* B
"I don't know what scheme you've got going this time, Luthor, but whatever it is - it'll never work." (Hauls Lex off to jail)

Question 2

Superman and Lois head down to the post-office so that he can read his fan mail. When they get there, Superman sees the innumerable sacks of letters and says:

* A
"Oh, No! I'll never be able to read all this mail!"

* B
(Superman reads all the letters in 2.3 seconds at super-speed, using his X-ray vision so that he doesn't even need to open the envelopes)


For each question, if you answered B, you know who Superman is. If you answered A, you must work for DC Comics. Yes, both of the events in the As are from recent issues and serve to illustrate just how poorly DC understands Superman.

Entire article is here:

http://theages.superman.nu/Fans/morgan.php

Some of Byrne's mistakes have been fixed, but his biggest mistake, the idea that Superman is some sort of insanely naive farmboy boyscout Lil Abner/Lenny/Jethro/Eb kind of hick has stuck for some insane reason. It's insulting to Superman and it's also insulting to rural people. Until this is eliminated Superman will continue to be looked at as a real dork and a loser. Of course Superman is positive and caring and noble and inspirational. What he is not is a fool.

[DoomGeneration]

this is the post tech boom era. when byrne was writing man of steel, guys like steve jobs and bill gates were just starting and growing their businesses. so i don't see a reason why lex can't be some genius evil mad scientist, but with business savvy.

and unlike lead cenobite i actually liked lois and clark. i dont agree with it completely, but i think there does have to be more of an attraction between lois and clark than what we saw in superman 1. lois and clark did go overboard with a charismatic and "hunky" clark kent... while it made for great innuendo and laughs, it got annoying after the first few episodes. but if the problem, as the studios perceive, is that mainstream audiences see superman as this invulnerable, alien, and unrelatable character, you can't have clark kent fade into the background, because he can bring the human aspect to the character. superman can be the face of hope, strength, and idealism for the people of metropolis. but it's when he's clark kent that we can see him brood about the pressures of power and responsibility, and the messy emotions of every day life.

as for kurosawa's fanboy litmus test: i answered B and B.

[JAK®]

Lex Luthor is a character that benefited from Post-Crisis changes, Superman is not. A mixture of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis is best, although I think we will be getting a Post-Crisis Superman this time.

[Octoberist]

I agree with Lex benefited the most from the changes too.

I don't think anyone is really objecting to a scientific genius Lex, AS LONG as he is the head of Lexcorp.

[Timstuff]

We've had 4 pre-crisis Superman movies already. Let's move on and show the general public something a bit more modern, because all they know is pre-crisis.

[Frankenmation]

I really don't think the the Donner/Reeve movies were the definitive portrayal of Pre-Crisis Superman, there was far more going on in that era than what happened in those films.

I don't think anyone's saying that all they want out of a Superman movie is Pre-Crisis and nothing else, they're just suggesting that it shouldn't be ignored when making the film, that's all.

[The Sage]

I really don't think the the Donner/Reeve movies were the definitive portrayal of Pre-Crisis Superman, there was far more going on in that era than what happened in those films.

I don't think anyone's saying that all they want out of a Superman movie is Pre-Crisis and nothing else, they're just suggesting that it shouldn't be ignored when making the film, that's all.

Pretty much. I don't understand why elements of both can't be blended together. As the starter of the thread said, there's no reason why Lex can't be a businessman and scientist. And I'd prefer the Superman/Clark Kent duality with the latter being more of a persona, or at least Superman/Real Clark Kent or Kal-El/Mild-Mannered Clark Kent.

[Frankenmation]

As the starter of the thread said, there's no reason why Lex can't be a businessman and scientist.

Exactly. The Lex Luthor of the DCAU started out as a business man but when the Justice League Animated series rolled around they incorporated more of the "mad scientist Lex" in, and it was still great, probably my favourite version of Lex in any media, period. I don't see why that wouldn't work.

[Kurosawa]

Lex Luthor is a character that benefited from Post-Crisis changes, Superman is not. A mixture of Pre-Crisis and Post-Crisis is best, although I think we will be getting a Post-Crisis Superman this time.

MOS is years out of date by this point as they have moved on to a more hybrid version. They would be wise to do so in the movie as well.

We've had 4 pre-crisis Superman movies already. Let's move on and show the general public something a bit more modern, because all they know is pre-crisis.

The movies have no resemblance to the Pre-Crisis Superman at all. If anything they are the precursors of the Post-Crisis version, as Superman was more naive, way more pure and a lot less adult. Also the farmboy thing and the Kansas setting came from the movies, in the Pre-Crisis comics Smallville was in the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic area and Clark was not a farm boy as much as he was a kid from a small town. Pa Kent sold the farm and moved into the town to run a general store. Also some of Lois' more comical traits like her inability to spell started in the movies. If they were like Pre-Crisis then Superman would have had a Superboy career, both Kents would have died before he became Superman, he would have been a lot more mature and confident, and of course Lex acted nothing like he did in the comics of the time, as he was a complex character in the comics who was not so much evil as he was obsessed with Superman. Plus had it been like Pre-Crisis he would have known Superman for years.

Pretty much. I don't understand why elements of both can't be blended together. As the starter of the thread said, there's no reason why Lex can't be a businessman and scientist. And I'd prefer the Superman/Clark Kent duality with the latter being more of a persona, or at least Superman/Real Clark Kent or Kal-El/Mild-Mannered Clark Kent.

Agree with all of this and even in Pre-Crisis Lex WAS a billionaire businessman and a scientist, he just hid his wealth and his companies under aliases.

[Lead Cenobite]

We've had 4 pre-crisis Superman movies already. Let's move on and show the general public something a bit more modern, because all they know is pre-crisis.

This is what I'm talking about. The Reeve movies are pre-crisis and pre-crisis isn't modern. The Reeve movies were just Superman movies, they weren't based on any particular era.

This is why I ask: What is inherently more modern about the changes Byrne made? You can take about everything from the pre-crisis comics and write it more maturely and it would be perfectly acceptable. Scientist Lex, disguise Clark, Phantom Zoners and Kara Zor-El galore.

[SuperFerret]

I loathe the concept of Clark Kent as a disguise. It reflects poorly on Superman and makes him so far from relatable that it's ridiculous.

[JAK®]

Well I think Clark Kent being the real person makes the disguise completely ridiculous.

I've always seen it, however, that there are two Clark Kents. One is the man who works at the Daily Planet who wears glasses, is mild-mannered and a bit clumsy, and the other is the real man who was raised by the Kents in Smallville; only close friends and family get to know this Kent. Then there's Superman, who doesn't differ that much from Farm Kent, just a bit more authorative.

[DarkKnight FTW]

Well I think Clark Kent being the real person makes the disguise completely ridiculous.

I've always seen it, however, that there are two Clark Kents. One is the man who works at the Daily Planet who wears glasses, is mild-mannered and a bit clumsy, and the other is the real man who was raised by the Kents in Smallville; only close friends and family get to know this Kent. Then there's Superman, who doesn't differ that much from Farm Kent, just a bit more authorative.

So, in essence, you see him similar to Bruce Wayne and his 3 faces? I can see that.

[SuperFerret]

That's how it should be. With Superman, Clark should be who he thinks of himself as, and both "mild mannered Clark" and "Superman, Man of Tomorrow" should be exaggerated extensions of that.

Occasionally, the two should (and often do) bleed through to the other. Mild mannered Clark could raise his voice just a bit to emphasize he means business on something, much like real people do (it's always surprising when the quiet guy in the group makes a bold statement, and it gets people to pay attention). Superman could easily be a bit less bold when with the elderly or children, so the awesome presence he puts on doesn't overwhelm them.

[SuperFerret]

That's how it should be. With Superman, Clark should be who he thinks of himself as, and both "mild mannered Clark" and "Superman, Man of Tomorrow" should be exaggerated extensions of that.

Occasionally, the two should (and often do) bleed through to the other. Mild mannered Clark could raise his voice just a bit to emphasize he means business on something, much like real people do (it's always surprising when the quiet guy in the group makes a bold statement, and it gets people to pay attention). Superman could easily be a bit less bold when with the elderly or children, so the awesome presence he puts on doesn't overwhelm them.

[Daybreak_st]

Well I think Clark Kent being the real person makes the disguise completely ridiculous.

I've always seen it, however, that there are two Clark Kents. One is the man who works at the Daily Planet who wears glasses, is mild-mannered and a bit clumsy, and the other is the real man who was raised by the Kents in Smallville; only close friends and family get to know this Kent. Then there's Superman, who doesn't differ that much from Farm Kent, just a bit more authorative.


Exactly, the comic Superman Birthright handled it this way and i think it's the way to develop the character and showcase his unique personality. It also gives him a way to show different sides of himself depending on who he's around, which would allow the actor to flesh some acting muscles as opposed to the limited amount of character development Clark recieved in SR.

Also i'm of the mindset that once he started gaining his abilities etc being able to see the microscopic makeup of people, read their dna, fly, see untold wonders beneath the ocean, he'd experience character growth beyond that of growing up on a farm. I think he starts out as Clark KEnt raised by the kents, but once the powers come the Kal-el personality starts to come out a bit more. He starts to see the world through alien eyes although filtered through a more human perspective. I think it's that merger of clark (guy he was raised as) and kal-el (his unique alien experience of life on earth with his powers) would allow him to emerge as Superman, the perfect combo of the two. Superman is clark at his heroic best. While i also think the unique viewpoint would result in kind of a science geek personality for clark, he'd be facinated with the things he can do and see.

That aspect of his personality isn't shown to everyone but as Metropolis clark he can let his inner geek shine a little bit and he enjoys it. While as Superman he's all hero, the guy people and trust and rely on. When he relaxed he's a bit of the clark kent that grew up in smallville if he's around his folks or someone who knows his secret, but if he's at the fortress you'd get more of Kal-el, the unique alien parts he can finally let show, and do things that would normally freak people out.

[Manic]

I've never been able to fully understand the concept of Clark Kent being the disguise. If he's been Clark Kent since before he could walk, was raised Clark Kent, and everyone calls him Clark Kent, how can it be a disguise? He found out his birth name was something else, therefore he's no longer Clark? I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, Superman's real name is Clark Kent and his real parents are the Kents. Well done on giving birth to him, El family, but you had no hand in raising him or instilling the sense of morals that he uses as Superman.

[GhostPoet]

the two things the film needs...

Lex and Lexcorp.

Heavy sci-fi elements.

Brainiac

otherwise...just don't even bother.

[Kurosawa]

I loathe the concept of Clark Kent as a disguise. It reflects poorly on Superman and makes him so far from relatable that it's ridiculous.

The core concept of Superman is that Clark is a disguise and an alter-ego. With every other character the civilian identity is the true person and the heroic identity the disguise. Superman being the real person and Clark the construct is what makes Superman unique, much more so than Superman being the only survivor of Krypton ever could in fact. But Clark is not a 100% construct, and even Superman himself doesn't know which side of him is the true self. He has to be Clark to cope with his responsibilities as Superman.

I've never been able to fully understand the concept of Clark Kent being the disguise. If he's been Clark Kent since before he could walk, was raised Clark Kent, and everyone calls him Clark Kent, how can it be a disguise? He found out his birth name was something else, therefore he's no longer Clark? I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, Superman's real name is Clark Kent and his real parents are the Kents. Well done on giving birth to him, El family, but you had no hand in raising him or instilling the sense of morals that he uses as Superman.

It's not that simple, nor should it be. There are two Clarks as has often been said, the public Clark and the private one. But although the Kents did raise him and shape him, his Kryptonian heritage should also be a huge part of his character. Otherwise he might as well be a mutant from Earth. Downplaying Krypton is a bad idea.

[Manic]

It's not that simple, nor should it be. There are two Clarks as has often been said, the public Clark and the private one. But although the Kents did raise him and shape him, his Kryptonian heritage should also be a huge part of his character. Otherwise he might as well be a mutant from Earth. Downplaying Krypton is a bad idea.

I argue that Clark doesn't need to have a "public Clark" and a "private Clark" anymore than the rest of us need a public/private version of ourselves. I can understand Clark conducting himself differently based on whether he's working or with friends, but there's no genuine need to change his personality completely when he's out in public. He's Clark, and his friends deserve to know what Clark is like. To walk around as a human caricature around people like Lois and Jimmy while calling them his friends... that's kind of a dick move. If people don't see that Clark and Superman are the same person by looking at his face, then acting like a dick around his friends is completely unnecessary.

Clark Kent isn't a disguise. That's who he is. Clark didn't finish high school, go to college, get a job, and rent out an apartment all as part of a disguise. That's Clark trying to live a normal life when he's not throwing on a wacky costume to save people.

[Daybreak_st]

I've never been able to fully understand the concept of Clark Kent being the disguise. If he's been Clark Kent since before he could walk, was raised Clark Kent, and everyone calls him Clark Kent, how can it be a disguise? He found out his birth name was something else, therefore he's no longer Clark? I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, Superman's real name is Clark Kent and his real parents are the Kents. Well done on giving birth to him, El family, but you had no hand in raising him or instilling the sense of morals that he uses as Superman.


Yeah i've heard people say that before but it's more than a name, it's more about his unique perspective on the world once he can see another person's dna, i'd think his fundamental perspective would change a little even if his basic personality didn't. I'd post this:



Also i'm of the mindset that once he started gaining his abilities etc being able to see the microscopic makeup of people, read their dna, fly, see untold wonders beneath the ocean, he'd experience character growth beyond that of growing up on a farm. I think he starts out as Clark KEnt raised by the kents, but once the powers come the Kal-el personality starts to come out a bit more. He starts to see the world through alien eyes although filtered through a more human perspective. I think it's that merger of clark (guy he was raised as) and kal-el (his unique alien experience of life on earth with his powers) would allow him to emerge as Superman, the perfect combo of the two. Superman is clark at his heroic best. While i also think the unique viewpoint would result in kind of a science geek personality for clark, he'd be facinated with the things he can do and see.




That's what makes the most sense for me. Your experiences change you. People who don't grow are mostly people who have just stayed in the same place with the same circustances their whole life. People who do travel, experience different things, grow and change. Just look at Bruce Wayne, isnt' that what the entire concept of BAtman is based on, him traveling the world gaining all these skills and insight to finally emerege as batman. He's not the same kid who left gotham.

But with Superman it's so much more than simply traveling, it's a fundamental change in how he literally sees the world once his power emerge. I mean, it's like what Johnathan told clark "once you start defying gravity i think we're in new territory". Seriously one trip into outer space, being able to see the whole earth would make such a huge impression on him. Then his speed, his eyesight, he'd simply be facinated by what he can do, and would (i would think) be something of scientist with his unqiue observations, etc. At least that's how i see it.

[JAK®]

I argue that Clark doesn't need to have a "public Clark" and a "private Clark" anymore than the rest of us need a public/private version of ourselves. I can understand Clark conducting himself differently based on whether he's working or with friends, but there's no genuine need to change his personality completely when he's out in public. He's Clark, and his friends deserve to know what Clark is like. To walk around as a human caricature around people like Lois and Jimmy while calling them his friends... that's kind of a dick move. If people don't see that Clark and Superman are the same person by looking at his face, then acting like a dick around his friends is completely unnecessary.

Clark Kent isn't a disguise. That's who he is. Clark didn't finish high school, go to college, get a job, and rent out an apartment all as part of a disguise. That's Clark trying to live a normal life when he's not throwing on a wacky costume to save people.
But then why does he wear glasses as a civilian to disguise himself, instead of dressing normally and putting on a mask when in costume, like every other superhero with a secret identity ever?

One of the most interesting things about Superman to me, is that he does the whole secret identity thing backwards. People forget he was born with superpowers, they weren't given to him. By hiding those powers, he is hiding his true nature.

Bumbling oaf Clark Kent is going too far, but Mild-Mannered Clark Kent is fine and isn't too harsh on Jimmy, Lois and the rest of his friends.

People are so used to superheroes like Spider-Man who puts on a costume and saves the day because they feel that is how they should use their new-found powers. But Superman is different, he is just using his natural abilities, and because of that when he is Superman he isn't playing a role as part of a secret identity, he is doing what he naturally believes he should do.

Post-Crisis Superman took the concept of Superman and tried to make him like every other superhero; and how he is just boring.

[Manic]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

[Manic]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

[JAK®]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?
Imagine if you were the only person in the world who knew how to walk. Everyone else crawls around like a baby. Would that not make your perspective so unique, you would no longer be a normal person? And by crawling around to fit in, would that not be ignoring a large part of what makes you, you?

[SuperFerret]

The core concept of Superman is that Clark is a disguise and an alter-ego. With every other character the civilian identity is the true person and the heroic identity the disguise. Superman being the real person and Clark the construct is what makes Superman unique, much more so than Superman being the only survivor of Krypton ever could in fact. But Clark is not a 100% construct, and even Superman himself doesn't know which side of him is the true self. He has to be Clark to cope with his responsibilities as Superman.

You've got a crappy (in my opinion) and outdated (objectively) opinion on what makes Superman unique. Clark cannot be the construct for multiple reasons.

- He's been "Clark Kent" for as long as he can remember, "Superman" just recently became a second name for him.

- Clark being the disguise validates that quote from Kill Bill, that Clark sees humanity as weak and pathetic, which he certainly does not.

- He's "Superman" because Clark is a good man with a good upbringing. Kal-El is where he gets his powers from, Clark Kent is why he's Superman.


Also, all powered superheroes hide their powers in their public identity. The reason Clark wears glasses as Clark instead of a mask as Superman is because with Superman not wearing a mask, and having the public know he's "Kal-El of Krypton", people don't think of him having a civilian life.

People might want to know who Batman is, or who is underneath the Flash's mask, but the general populace just assumes that Superman is Superman all the time, which gives him the opportunity to just be Clark.

[SuperFerret]

Imagine if you were the only person in the world who knew how to walk. Everyone else crawls around like a baby. Would that not make your perspective so unique, you would no longer be a normal person? And by crawling around to fit in, would that not be ignoring a large part of what makes you, you?

No, because occasionally, I'd get to express myself by running.

[Kurosawa]

I argue that Clark doesn't need to have a "public Clark" and a "private Clark" anymore than the rest of us need a public/private version of ourselves. I can understand Clark conducting himself differently based on whether he's working or with friends, but there's no genuine need to change his personality completely when he's out in public. He's Clark, and his friends deserve to know what Clark is like. To walk around as a human caricature around people like Lois and Jimmy while calling them his friends... that's kind of a dick move. If people don't see that Clark and Superman are the same person by looking at his face, then acting like a dick around his friends is completely unnecessary.

Clark Kent isn't a disguise. That's who he is. Clark didn't finish high school, go to college, get a job, and rent out an apartment all as part of a disguise. That's Clark trying to live a normal life when he's not throwing on a wacky costume to save people.

Then you basically feel that the singular concept that makes Superman different from every other superhero is flawed and the character itself does not work. This is a wrongheaded opinion to me. Clark is a disguise and he is a disguise so that he can live that normal life. And we all live and act differently according to circumstances we find ourselves in. And finally, I think you and many other people tend to confuse actual people with the literary construct known as a "character".

But then why does he wear glasses as a civilian to disguise himself, instead of dressing normally and putting on a mask when in costume, like every other superhero with a secret identity ever?

One of the most interesting things about Superman to me, is that he does the whole secret identity thing backwards. People forget he was born with superpowers, they weren't given to him. By hiding those powers, he is hiding his true nature.

Bumbling oaf Clark Kent is going too far, but Mild-Mannered Clark Kent is fine and isn't too harsh on Jimmy, Lois and the rest of his friends.

People are so used to superheroes like Spider-Man who puts on a costume and saves the day because they feel that is how they should use their new-found powers. But Superman is different, he is just using his natural abilities, and because of that when he is Superman he isn't playing a role as part of a secret identity, he is doing what he naturally believes he should do.

Post-Crisis Superman took the concept of Superman and tried to make him like every other superhero; and how he is just boring.

Exactly. That's why many of the most brilliant minds to ever work in comics like Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer and Alan Moore agree.

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

Clark is an isn't 100% an act, and yes, people put on acts all the time in real life. It's called tact and decorum.

To reject the Clark/Superman duality is to reject the very core concept of Superman. As the last disastrous 25 years has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, getting rid of that and other core concepts sat down by his creators (Siegel and Shuster created Superman, NOT John Byrne), has cost the character deeply both artistically and commercially as Superman has become more and more irrelevant. Why read or watch a Superman that is a Spider-Man clone if you can read or watch the real thing? Answer: people don't.

[Manic]

Imagine if you were the only person in the world who knew how to walk. Everyone else crawls around like a baby. Would that not make your perspective so unique, you would no longer be a normal person? And by crawling around to fit in, would that not be ignoring a large part of what makes you, you?

But I wouldn't forget how to crawl. I wouldn't have to imitate crawling, because I'd be a crawler who can also walk. Also, that doesn't really give me an excuse to speak differently or pretend to crawl worse than others. And there are other people who can walk that don't need to imitate crawling.


There's a few people with abilities similar to Superman's, and they don't need to pretend to be someone else when they're not using their powers. That clumsy pre-Crisis "Clark is really the disguise" version of Clark Kent wasn't just Superman pretending he didn't have those powers. That was Superman speaking and behaving disingenuously.

There's no reason Clark has to put on an act beyond pretending he can't see dustmites across the street. Hiding his powers doesn't justify a silly voice or pretending to be kind of an idiot. No other superhero has to do that.

[Manic]

To reject the Clark/Superman duality is to reject the very core concept of Superman. As the last disastrous 25 years has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, getting rid of that and other core concepts sat down by his creators (Siegel and Shuster created Superman, NOT John Byrne), has cost the character deeply both artistically and commercially as Superman has become more and more irrelevant. Why read or watch a Superman that is a Spider-Man clone if you can read or watch the real thing? Answer: people don't.

I'm sorry. Are you saying Superman is less of a commercial success because he no longer acts like two entirely different people? Really? That's the reason?

[Binker]

Answering the the topic question; there are major reasons why we look at Byrne's Superman as a starting point for Superman in all media: that's where and when we got the modern Superman, no different than how O'Neil/Adams for Batman and Wonder Woman with Perez. Us, our modern era, is in that version of Superman, and many things from his run/reboot have been seen both as part of the mythos just as much as part of media with Superman Animated to Smallville. Even recent Superman stroies like Secret Origin to the upcoming Earth One still reuse Byrne's ideas in different ways.

Regardless of the famous ideas pre-reboot, it is in some ways the only valid path because most readers, yes knowing the basics of Golden, Silver and Bronze, they ignore the rest which happen to be maybe close to 90% of those eras simply because there is nothing there. That explains why Byrne's Man of Steel was such a big hit when it was published; that was everyone's SUperman, and still is today, even DC canon regardless of Infinite Crisis.

If anything, the current comics where they are keeping post-crisis but bringing back ideas they had that were removed thanks to Crisis and tying them together (ex: Luthor was a scientist and became a businessman beause of it, it is still Clark, but Clark in Metropolis is him hidding and Superman is him being himself) is probably what all fans would want and agree with, but regardless on those who preferred Superman Animated from Byrne's, or me personally who loves Superman For All Seasons and It's Superman! A Novel (Earth One seems to be the next one on that personal short list), the first Superman writer/reboot to look at in regards to other media or this reboot film is John Byrne's The Man of Steel.

[SuperFerret]

Superman is less of a commercial success because the trends of the past 25 years have skewed in the favor of the Wolverines and Punishers of the superhero world, and Batman has only really hung on due to his darker nature. Superman is by and far looked at as a way too powerful, unrelatable, ultimately good and perfect god-figure, and that (like Aquaman's stigma of being useless) hurts the character, and is a direct result of the older stories.

[Daybreak_st]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?


Are you reading my posts are just skimming? B/c i thought the explaination was pretty clear in my first post. His personality, his likes/dislikes, his sense of humor is all very much an aspect of his upbringing, however the minute he can see a persons DNA or fly, or leave the earth's atmosphere under his own power....yes he's not just your average kansas farm boy anymore. His fundamental view point would change.

Again look at batman. Is he the same kid who left gotham to travel the world or did his 10 year or however long he was gone fundamentally change him and his perspective? Either it did or it didn't.

Clark Kent not only traveled the world like batman, but since his powers emerged began seeing the world in a very unique way, something he can't fully share with anyone. So you think Bruce wayne can grow and change but clark kent with his unique perspective and experience would be nothing more than an average farmboy, or see the world like everyone else?

I think Clark Kent with his parents is very much the person he was raised to be, he'd joke, have fun ect. but a part of him, the part that started to develop with his powers would be a little lonely, knowing that no one else would ever know what it's like to be him. He'd also be facinated with being an alien and what that means. That part is Kal-el. I don't think he'd need to constanly complain etc, but there woudl be something a little tragic about having the most unique vision of the world that no one else could fully understand/ appreciate. And being a human who gains powers vs being a alien, who finds out he's the last of his race would also enhance/inform his experience and viewpoint.

I think that's the part that develops during his late teens early adulthood before superman. It's at that time that he's traveling the world trying to figure what he should do etc. Then i think it's him finding that balance in his two halves that gives him some peace of mind and allows him to emerge as Superman.

The clark kent in metropolis is basically letting the geek side out, enjoying his friends etc but with a mild mannered toned down persona. The smallville clark is the same person but more outgoing etc.

Kal-el is the alien part of Clark, but especially after he finds some answers to his questions, learns about krypton, finds the fortress etc. The fortress allows him to find out more about his heritage, his people, that his dad was a scientist, etc. The fortress let's him explore/embrace a side of himself that began to emerge as a teen but he never understood.

Superman is clark as his heroic best once he's come to terms with Kal-el. It's him using all of his kryptonian gifts in the service of mankind. But it's also him putting on his "best" forward so to speak. Like a cop or fireman, he's not showing his vulnerability, issues etc. It's his "best". Clark let's him have those issues/ vulnerabilites etc.

[Manic]

Daybreak, the way that you describe it, basically no version of Clark/Superman is a disguise because he's just letting out different aspects of his real personality around different people.

And that's completely normal. Just don't call one of those aspects a disguise, and we're square.

[JAK®]

Daybreak, the way that you describe it, basically no version of Clark/Superman is a disguise because he's just letting out different aspects of his real personality around different people.

And that's completely normal. Just don't call one of those aspects a disguise, and we're square.
So what do you call wearing glasses when you don't need to? A fashion statement?

[Daybreak_st]

Daybreak, the way that you describe it, basically no version of Clark/Superman is a disguise because he's just letting out different aspects of his real personality around different people.

And that's completely normal. Just don't call one of those aspects a disguise, and we're square.


Yeah i completely agree with you there. Just different parts of him, not a disguise.

[Manic]

So what do you call wearing glasses when you don't need to? A fashion statement?

You'd be surprised. I have a friend who wears glasses just because he likes the look.

[JAK®]

Also everyone here is talking about a bumbling Clark Kent when that wasn't even a part of the Pre-Crisis character. That was an invention of the Donner movies. He's mild-mannered, not an idiot.

[JAK®]

Also everyone here is talking about a bumbling Clark Kent when that wasn't even a part of the Pre-Crisis character. That was an invention of the Donner movies. He's mild-mannered, not an idiot.

[JAK®]

You'd be surprised. I have a friend who wears glasses just because he likes the look.
Does Clark Kent wear glasses as part of a fashion statement?

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Clark has to wear glasses, because he's not wearing a mask when he's Superman.

[JAK®]

Clark has to wear glasses, because he's not wearing a mask when he's Superman.
Exactly. It's a disguise. And he disguises himself not when he is flying around saving people, but when he is interacting with normal people and hiding his powers. So, Clark Kent, at least the one that works at the Daily Planet, is a disguise.

[Young Superman]

I think the film should be set in modern day, but be based on the Golden Age Superman as far as Clark Kent/Superman's personality is concerned. A Meek, Mild-Mannered reporter as Clark Kent and a social crusader, champion of the oppressed as Superman. I agree Lex should be combination corrupt businessman/scientist/inventor. IMO the three things John Byrne got right were:

1. Making Kal-El/Superman the last Kryptonian again.
2. corrupt businessman Lex.
3. Both the Kent being alive when Clark is Superman.

[SuperFerret]

Clark has to wear glasses, because he's not wearing a mask when he's Superman.

Which he does to give the public more trust in his heroic side and to prevent the complications of his heroic side from bleeding into his normal guy side.

If you really want to grasp at straws, the glasses and the \S/ are the disguises. Clark Kent is the guy who wears them.

[SuperMike335!!]

This site is mostly made of of people who know very little about comics and those who do follow comics skew much more towards stuff from the last 20 years or so. There is actually a strong amount of disdain towards anyone who defends earlier comics or is a fan of them.

You seem to be hateful of anyone who liked anything that Byrne did.

The reason you get "disdain" in replies is because when you "defend" Pre-Crisis, you do so by INSULTING Post Crisis fans.

You call yourself a Pre-Crisis Purist at the same time.

Because that does not sound self-righteous. :whatever:

[JAK®]

Clark Kent is the real man, just not when he is wearing glasses at the Daily Planet.

[Manic]

If some writer decides to make Clark Kent some disguise that's an insulting caricature of human behavior, then I ask that they do one thing: Please, for the love of god, don't make Clark hit on Lois. That just makes Superman look like an idiot.

"Hey, Lois. Even though you're clearly enamored with Superman, I'm going to unsuccessfully try to ask you out several times while I'm using this false personality as Clark Kent. Oh, woe is me!" What kind of ****ing results do you want, Supes? Do you want Lois to fall madly in love with you while you're pretending to be clumsy and bashful all the time? Do you really think a relationship like that would work in the end, with you putting on an elaborate act the entire time you're dating her?

[JAK®]

If some writer decides to make Clark Kent some disguise that's an insulting caricature of human behavior, then I ask that they do one thing: Please, for the love of god, don't make Clark hit on Lois. That just makes Superman look like an idiot.

"Hey, Lois. Even though you're clearly enamored with Superman, I'm going to unsuccessfully try to ask you out several times while I'm using this false personality as Clark Kent. Oh, woe is me!" What kind of ****ing results do you want, Supes? Do you want Lois to fall madly in love with you while you're pretending to be clumsy and bashful all the time? Do you really think a relationship like that would work in the end, with you putting on an elaborate act the entire time you're dating her?
Are you even reading my posts. How many times do I have to say that Clark Kent as a disguise is MILD MANNERED, not a bumbling oaf, who has only appeared in the Donner movies and All Star Superman.

[The Batman]

I'll consider this flick a disappointment if its based on MOS/Post Crisis. Superman has been broken in the comics for 20 + years. The Filmmakers should show some iniative and modernize the original character.

The only books they should look at, IMO, are All Star Superman, Birthright, and Geoff John's Brainiac arc, in addition to some Siegel/Shuster

[maenalus]

My favorite Clark is the wryly demure one from the Fleischer cartoons. It's not him going out of his way to fool people, acting like something he's not. Just opposite in fact. He's just having fun and finding the humor the whole ridiculous situation of hiding his awesome powers from everyone.

Having said that, I plenty enjoy different versions too.

[Manic]

Are you even reading my posts. How many times do I have to say that Clark Kent as a disguise is MILD MANNERED, not a bumbling oaf, who has only appeared in the Donner movies and All Star Superman.

That wasn't directed at anyone at all. I was just saying that in general. It's something that bothered the hell out of me in some of the movies.

[The Batman]

Are you reading my posts are just skimming? B/c i thought the explaination was pretty clear in my first post. His personality, his likes/dislikes, his sense of humor is all very much an aspect of his upbringing, however the minute he can see a persons DNA or fly, or leave the earth's atmosphere under his own power....yes he's not just your average kansas farm boy anymore. His fundamental view point would change.

Again look at batman. Is he the same kid who left gotham to travel the world or did his 10 year or however long he was gone fundamentally change him and his perspective? Either it did or it didn't.

Clark Kent not only traveled the world like batman, but since his powers emerged began seeing the world in a very unique way, something he can't fully share with anyone. So you think Bruce wayne can grow and change but clark kent with his unique perspective and experience would be nothing more than an average farmboy, or see the world like everyone else?

I think Clark Kent with his parents is very much the person he was raised to be, he'd joke, have fun ect. but a part of him, the part that started to develop with his powers would be a little lonely, knowing that no one else would ever know what it's like to be him. He'd also be facinated with being an alien and what that means. That part is Kal-el. I don't think he'd need to constanly complain etc, but there woudl be something a little tragic about having the most unique vision of the world that no one else could fully understand/ appreciate. And being a human who gains powers vs being a alien, who finds out he's the last of his race would also enhance/inform his experience and viewpoint.

I think that's the part that develops during his late teens early adulthood before superman. It's at that time that he's traveling the world trying to figure what he should do etc. Then i think it's him finding that balance in his two halves that gives him some peace of mind and allows him to emerge as Superman.

The clark kent in metropolis is basically letting the geek side out, enjoying his friends etc but with a mild mannered toned down persona. The smallville clark is the same person but more outgoing etc.

Kal-el is the alien part of Clark, but especially after he finds some answers to his questions, learns about krypton, finds the fortress etc. The fortress allows him to find out more about his heritage, his people, that his dad was a scientist, etc. The fortress let's him explore/embrace a side of himself that began to emerge as a teen but he never understood.

Superman is clark as his heroic best once he's come to terms with Kal-el. It's him using all of his kryptonian gifts in the service of mankind. But it's also him putting on his "best" forward so to speak. Like a cop or fireman, he's not showing his vulnerability, issues etc. It's his "best". Clark let's him have those issues/ vulnerabilites etc.

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...

[JAK®]

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...
It's funny because a lot of Superman: The Movie influenced John Byrne's Man of Steel.

[The Batman]

It's funny because a lot of Superman: The Movie influenced John Byrne's Man of Steel.

Exactly. Bryne's Superman even looks Reeve-esque. Krypton is cold just like in the movie, to name a few examples.

[Lead Cenobite]

One interpretation I have is Clark starts off the real person, a mild mannered, meek person, as a result of Clark living his life hiding his powers from people and having to live as an ordinary human. When he starts helping people and becomes Superman, a hidden side of him is revealed, someone more confident and assertive. But in order to not arouse suspicion, he continues to be the Clark he was growing up. So what was once a genuine personality sortof becomes a disguise.

[Kurosawa]

I'm sorry. Are you saying Superman is less of a commercial success because he no longer acts like two entirely different people? Really? That's the reason?

Yes it is a huge part of it. What makes Superman work for so many people is the idea of wish fulfillment, that there is more to them than most people realize and that inside them is the potential for greatness. Without a human, fragile, relatable Clark Kent that is lost. If Clark has women gushing over him, is in great shape, has a perfect family and was a star quarterback and THEN he turns out to have Godlike superpowers, then it is like Brad Pitt winning the lottery. There is nothing for people to relate to and there is no soul, no loss and no pathos. If everything is easy for them then he is boring as a rock.

Superman is less of a commercial success because the trends of the past 25 years have skewed in the favor of the Wolverines and Punishers of the superhero world, and Batman has only really hung on due to his darker nature. Superman is by and far looked at as a way too powerful, unrelatable, ultimately good and perfect god-figure, and that (like Aquaman's stigma of being useless) hurts the character, and is a direct result of the older stories.

That's the pat answer and that is what you always hear. It is because of that lack of insight that they have failed to address the real issues and the real failings of the character, plus they do not want to admit that their changes were wrong. It's easier to slam dead guys whose families are suing them than it is to take Byrne to task for his misdeeds when he can get on the internet and whine about it. And even he can't defend his dumbest ideas like no Superboy (he actually admits that was a mistake), Superman and Clark being raised as brothers, Superman looking like Clark because he imitated the first person he saw (which was supposedly Clark), porno movie with Big Barda, murdering the PZ criminals in cold blood, I could go on and on. At least the Silver Age stories are 50 years old and were written for children, Byrne's crap has no such excuse except his own extreme inadequacies as a creator and writer.

Also everyone here is talking about a bumbling Clark Kent when that wasn't even a part of the Pre-Crisis character. That was an invention of the Donner movies. He's mild-mannered, not an idiot.

Exactly. But so many people think the Donner movies and Pre-Crisis are the same thing. If it was Krypton would have looked like Flash Gordon, Lex would have had real depth, he would have been Superboy, etc.

Exactly. It's a disguise. And he disguises himself not when he is flying around saving people, but when he is interacting with normal people and hiding his powers. So, Clark Kent, at least the one that works at the Daily Planet, is a disguise.

Precisely. And he is in many ways the most interesting about Superman. Take that character away-Clark Kent is basically Woody Allen-and you have a pretty generic character. Byrne turned Superman into all the parodies that had been done of him over the years, which is basically all he knew about the character anyway. He knew what Stan taught him.

[JAK®]

One interpretation I have is Clark starts off the real person, a mild mannered, meek person, as a result of Clark living his life hiding his powers from people and having to live as an ordinary human. When he starts helping people and becomes Superman, a hidden side of him is revealed, someone more confident and assertive. But in order to not arouse suspicion, he continues to be the Clark he was growing up. So what was once a genuine personality sortof becomes a disguise.
J.J Abrams' script for Superman Lives had the Kents resent Clark for his powers, believing it was against God. So in that version, Superman didn't think too fondly of his powers at first. Always thought that was an interesting idea, but not for a movie.

[Kurosawa]

Nah, I don't like that take. Pa Kent loved his son unconditionally and was always enthusiastic about his powers. He even helped Clark learn how to fly.

[batman44]

J.J Abrams' script for Superman Lives had the Kents resent Clark for his powers, believing it was against God. So in that version, Superman didn't think too fondly of his powers at first. Always thought that was an interesting idea, but not for a movie.

Was that JJ's script? I remembrer reading that Clark being afraid of his powers after he beat the crap outta some creep trying to rape his mother then being called a devil which freaked Clark out out at his young age, but his parents being in support of his abilities.

[maenalus]

And even he can't defend his dumbest ideas like no Superboy (he actually admits that was a mistake),


Why is Superboy a necessity? Besides just being (to me) dull and boring, Clark having a Superboy career just takes away from the impact on the public being introduced to Superman.

[JAK®]

I admit that Superboy is one of the things I don't like about Pre-Crisis.

[Kurosawa]

I think the film should be set in modern day, but be based on the Golden Age Superman as far as Clark Kent/Superman's personality is concerned. A Meek, Mild-Mannered reporter as Clark Kent and a social crusader, champion of the oppressed as Superman. I agree Lex should be combination corrupt businessman/scientist/inventor. IMO the three things John Byrne got right were:

1. Making Kal-El/Superman the last Kryptonian again.
2. corrupt businessman Lex.
3. Both the Kent being alive when Clark is Superman.

Last Kryptonian only works if Krypton itself was appealing and his heritage from there is deeply meaningful to him. Corrupt businessman Lex is a Kingpin swipe but can be made to work if he is also a brilliant scientist. It also was not 100% new as Pre-Crisis Lex was also a billionaire, he just hid his wealth with aliases.

You seem to be hateful of anyone who liked anything that Byrne did.

The reason you get "disdain" in replies is because when you "defend" Pre-Crisis, you do so by INSULTING Post Crisis fans.

You call yourself a Pre-Crisis Purist at the same time.

Because that does not sound self-righteous. :whatever:

I never say anything about the fans except I feel their opinions are wrongheaded and they generally don't know much about Pre-Crisis except what DC has told them. I don't call them asses or anything. But Post-Crisis fans are quick to insult you if you like the older material and feel the original creators visions are important with insulting terms like "nostalgia douche".


Why is Superboy a necessity? Besides just being (to me) dull and boring, Clark having a Superboy career just takes away from the impact on the public being introduced to Superman.

First of all, I don't see Superboy as 100% essential although I do like the series and I personally would include him because I would want to develop a LOSH spin-off, but it is Byrne himself who admits he made a mistake getting rid of him.

Two things that getting rid of Superboy messed up:
1) In the comics, it ruined the Legion Of Super-Heroes. To make a possible and debatable positive change for Superman they messed up an entire super-team and one of their best-selling and critically acclaimed series. The team has never recovered from that, although they've restored Superboy and (more or less) the original Legion now, and we'll just have to see how that goes.

2) Getting rid of Superboy is what led to the Kents staying alive well into Superman's manhood, but it also never allowed him to leave the nest and grow up. It's fine for Spider-Man to have all these domestic scenes with Aunt May because he has other events in his life to challenge him, but for most of the Post-Crisis Superman's existence he had both parents alive, a wife, friends, and the loss of his home world and birth parents were not important to him. He had it completely easy and had no loss, pain or pathos in his life. There is simply nothing there to relate to. He had a perfect upbringing, a perfect childhood, he was a popular athlete in high school and there he turns out to be a beloved superhero. There is not a single thing to make you actually feel for the character one bit. And he acted like a kid who had his whole life handed to him too, as he lost the Pre-Crisis characters maturity and intelligence, reacting like an impudent child instead when faced with his enemies.

A lot of these mistakes have been fixed and the character is on the right track. The current Superman is not John Byrne's character, and that is a great thing. There is still work to be done and Grounded is a good idea written poorly but there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. All-Star Superman would have never seen the light of day in the 90's, and now it is correctly seen as THE way to portray Superman. Hopefully this trend continues and the brilliance of Elliot S! Maggin's work is reintegrated into the books as well. If I ran DC my first phone call would be to him, actually.

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...

Talk to any Byrne shipper and they always quote the same things: Krypto, Beppo, Jimmy Olsen Turtle-Boy, etc. And all of that stuff came from Stan. Why did Stan slam Superman like that? BECAUSE DC WAS THE ENEMY. Taking Stan's criticisms of 60's Superman comics as the guide to the character (as Byrne did) would be like a Yankee fan agreeing with a Red Sox fans' critiques of the team and running it in that way.

[SuperMike335!!]

I never say anything about the fans except I feel their opinions are wrongheaded and they generally don't know much about Pre-Crisis except what DC has told them. I don't call them asses or anything. But Post-Crisis fans are quick to insult you if you like the older material and feel the original creators visions are important with insulting terms like "nostalgia douche".


They only call you that AFTER you CALL them wrongheaded.

You tell them it is wrong to have an opinion other than yours, and then you wonder why they get mad at you.

You "JUSTIFY" that in saying it is because of the original creators visions, and then wonder why that looks self-righteous to us.

[Kurosawa]

They only call you that AFTER you CALL them wrongheaded.

You tell them it is wrong to have an opinion other than yours, and then you wonder why they get mad at you.

You "JUSTIFY" that in saying it is because of the original creators visions, and then wonder why that looks self-righteous to us.

I could less about you or anyone else on these boards. I care about Superman and I care about Siegel and Shuster and their vision. That's it. If I disagree then I explain why I feel they are wrong and I back it up with facts. If that makes people mad then that is their problem.

[SuperMike335!!]

I could less about your or anyone else on these boards. I care about Superman and I care about Siegel and Shuster and their vision. That's it. If I disagree then I explain why I feel they are wrong and I back it up with facts. If that makes people mad then that is their problem.

Well if you do not care about anyone else on these boards, why do you feel the need to preach to them about the Pre-Crisis Superman and insult thier opinions? I mean after all, you could care less about them...

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8875/highhorse.jpg

[Kurosawa]

Well if you do not care about anyone else on these boards, why do you feel the need to preach to them about the Pre-Crisis Superman and insult thier opinions? I mean after all, you could care less about them...

What I mean by that is it is nothing personal against them, just a disagreement on a topic. I don't mean that just because they believe Superman should be the same guy as Clark or as Supes that they kick puppies or something, just that I think they are wrong. And disagreeing with someone and explaining why you feel you are right is insulting someone since when?

[Octoberist]

Fight fight fight fight

[Daybreak_st]

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...


Yes agreed. I also feel like too many people are focused on looking back at what's come before, whether its' "let's make it like bryne" or "it needs to go back to 1938" or whatever. This notion that the only way the character can work is to go backwards. For any character to survive and thrive the real need is to move forward. Look at worked in the previous incarnations, i mean he has over 70 years of history but don't jettison something b/c "oh i hate byrne i'll never use anything from his era" or "oh i hate pre-crisis superman so i'll never use anything from that era" that's just juvenile, selfish and silly.

Superman is an amalagam of various writers from different time periods, for the past 70+ years. Take a good look at what's worked and what hasn't worked. Look at the best incarnation of the characters. And then move them forward. Don't retroactively make a new film but force it re-create something that is dated and old, that's why Superman Returns failed. The movie needs to find what will work best on film and serve to rejuventate the franchise and people's overall interests in Superman.

If you look at Nolan's approach to Batman you'll see he chose this approach. Both in Begins with Bruce Wayne, and the Dark Knight with the Joker, he heavily referenced teh first appearance of the Joker, in his use of teh media, back then in the comic he used teh Radio to annouce his murders/crimes, in the film he used television etc. Use what works, and move the characters forward not backwards.

It's also the way Donner approached Superman the Movie. At that time in the comic Clark was actually working for tv station. Also as stated Krypton looked nothing like it did in the movie. Donner wanted to approach it with a seriousness to it and didn't feel the Flash Gordon esque Kryton would work so he changed it and look how well that turned out, now the comics even mimic it. The point is if they draw from the rich history but rather than slavishly trying to put Bryne's vision on the screen or do it exactly how Seigel and shuster would have, but rather use some insight and ingenuity to move the character forward they might have surprising sucess.

[TruerToTheCore]

I would've said something about this topic but SHH ate my response (note: always clipboard before post) and I have no urge to post it again. Which isn't even necessary because everything has already been said. Pre-Crisis hardliner like myself won't change their opinion and post-crisis disciples will keep on screaming "turtleboy". I just hope Nolan is wise enough not to give us a post-crisis Superman, he should just make a great movie which will win over the haters. He didn't make a Frank Miller Batman when everyone (yes, welcome to the early 00s) thought that Batman the more darker, the more violent, the better.

[Kurosawa]

I never liked the crystal castles Krypton at all. The shame is they pulled off the right look for Krypton a few years later in the Flash Gordon movie. Maybe they were afraid of it looking similar.

[Kurosawa]

I would've said something about this topic but SHH ate my response (note: always clipboard before post) and I have no urge to post it again. Which isn't even necessary because everything has already been said. Pre-Crisis hardliner like myself won't change their opinion and post-crisis disciples will keep on screaming "turtleboy". I just hope Nolan is wise enough not to give us a post-crisis Superman, he should just make a great movie which will win over the haters. He didn't make a Frank Miller Batman when everyone (yes, welcome to the early 00s) thought that Batman the more darker, the more violent, the better.

Agree completely. And Nolan is a smart guy and I think he will make the right decisions.

[SuperFerret]

I'm going to just flat out state my opinion and then leave. Superman is one of the many characters that have gotten better with age. Aside from a few burps here and there, the Superman we have today is a FAR better character than he was when he was created. The modern Superman is what needs to be in the new movie.

[Lead Cenobite]

J.J Abrams' script for Superman Lives had the Kents resent Clark for his powers, believing it was against God. So in that version, Superman didn't think too fondly of his powers at first. Always thought that was an interesting idea, but not for a movie.

Oh I wouldn't want anything like that. My take is Clark hides his powers because the Kents are afraid the government would take him away or people would fear him.

To me, being nearly godlike and having to pretend to be human severely complicates things. It makes any sortof competition against humans impossible. He has to fake having human level abilities to play football, otherwise it's unfair or the other players could get hurt. It even affects his job, really.

With no outlet to build confidence, he becomes the mild mannered guy we know. Being Superman gives him purpose and gives him something to do that challenges him in ways he couldn't have been challenged before.

[SuperMike335!!]

What I mean by that is it is nothing personal against them, just a disagreement on a topic. I don't mean that just because they believe Superman should be the same guy as Clark or as Supes that they kick puppies or something, just that I think they are wrong. And disagreeing with someone and explaining why you feel you are right is insulting someone since when?

Thats all fine and dandy to not agree.

Its only when you say something that amounts to "my opinion is MORE valid than yours, and here is WHY..." that it looks ugly.

[Kurosawa]

I'm going to just flat out state my opinion and then leave. Superman is one of the many characters that have gotten better with age. Aside from a few burps here and there, the Superman we have today is a FAR better character than he was when he was created. The modern Superman is what needs to be in the new movie.

Do you mean the modern Superman that is currently appearing in DC Comics?

Thats all fine and dandy to not agree.

Its only when you say something that amounts to "my opinion is MORE valid than yours, and here is WHY..." that it looks ugly.

And I have done that where? All I have done is state my opinion and back it up with facts from the comics themselves, the creators themselves and used quotes and comments from some of comics best writers to support my position. As I said, I have nothing against anyone who likes Byrne's character on a personal level, I just disagree with them on Superman. I feel and have always felt that Batman flourishes because they took him back to his core concepts and those are what worked in the first place. I feel Superman worked for as long as it did-because for the first 50 years of his existence he never had the ups and downs that Batman had-because they stuck with the core concepts and then added to them. Byrne's character turned those concepts completely around. It's like making Peter Parker a rich kid with a 1.5 GPA or Wolverine a pacifist or Cyclops a party boy.

When they went away from the core with Batman, doing sci-fi stories, the book almost canceled. After the brief boom from the TV series, the campiness that was in the Batman comics at the time almost got them canceled again. It was going back to the ideas of the Bill Finger/Jerry Robinson/Bob Kane original that saved Batman and has made him the #1 property DC owns. Since they have strayed from Siegel and Shusters intentions with Superman, the character has lost relevance, has been killed, put into absurd new costumes, and several other sales gimmicks or varying quality but the main thing is the character needs a gimmick to sell at all because they have strayed too far from the core concepts. They only worked for 50 YEARS.

[The Batman]

Yes agreed. I also feel like too many people are focused on looking back at what's come before, whether its' "let's make it like bryne" or "it needs to go back to 1938" or whatever. This notion that the only way the character can work is to go backwards. For any character to survive and thrive the real need is to move forward. Look at worked in the previous incarnations, i mean he has over 70 years of history but don't jettison something b/c "oh i hate byrne i'll never use anything from his era" or "oh i hate pre-crisis superman so i'll never use anything from that era" that's just juvenile, selfish and silly.

Superman is an amalagam of various writers from different time periods, for the past 70+ years. Take a good look at what's worked and what hasn't worked. Look at the best incarnation of the characters. And then move them forward. Don't retroactively make a new film but force it re-create something that is dated and old, that's why Superman Returns failed. The movie needs to find what will work best on film and serve to rejuventate the franchise and people's overall interests in Superman.

If you look at Nolan's approach to Batman you'll see he chose this approach. Both in Begins with Bruce Wayne, and the Dark Knight with the Joker, he heavily referenced teh first appearance of the Joker, in his use of teh media, back then in the comic he used teh Radio to annouce his murders/crimes, in the film he used television etc. Use what works, and move the characters forward not backwards.

It's also the way Donner approached Superman the Movie. At that time in the comic Clark was actually working for tv station. Also as stated Krypton looked nothing like it did in the movie. Donner wanted to approach it with a seriousness to it and didn't feel the Flash Gordon esque Kryton would work so he changed it and look how well that turned out, now the comics even mimic it. The point is if they draw from the rich history but rather than slavishly trying to put Bryne's vision on the screen or do it exactly how Seigel and shuster would have, but rather use some insight and ingenuity to move the character forward they might have surprising sucess.

Agreed. I truly think that the movie is the best chance of seeing a superman that can be interesting for a 21st century audience. WB should do what Waid did on Birthright. BR was such a good book because it felt like superman...just updated for the 21st century.

Bryne's superman is no longer modern or relevant, and its been proven not to work. And its interesting how shows based on pre crisis dont fare so well either. STAS was never as popular as BTAS, and most people wont even cite it as THE definitive Superman. Lois and Clark came and went, and smallville's mainly popular with teenage girls and comic fans...and after its ended, itll be forgotten as well.

[Kurosawa]

Agreed. I truly think that the movie is the best chance of seeing a superman that can be interesting for a 21st century audience. WB should do what Waid did on Birthright. BR was such a good book because it felt like superman...just updated for the 21st century.

Bryne's superman is no longer modern or relevant, and its been proven not to work. And its interesting how shows based on pre crisis dont fare so well either. STAS was never as popular as BTAS, and most people wont even cite it as THE definitive Superman. Lois and Clark came and went, and smallville's mainly popular with teenage girls and comic fans...and after its ended, itll be forgotten as well.

I assume you meant Post-Crisis fare. None of those shows were ever huge because so much of the core concept was lost. Well that and a lot of other reasons. At least Smallville did explore the Lex/Superman relationship in a way that was somewhat close to the real thing.

[SuperFerret]

Do you mean the modern Superman that is currently appearing in DC Comics?

Yes.


Turning me into a liar by making me respond to a question when I said I'd leave. :argh:

[Kurosawa]

Yes.


Turning me into a liar by making me respond to a question when I said I'd leave. :argh:

Well the Superman of today is very much a mix of the Pre and Post Crisis versions. I think DC does realize they have divided their fans and that it hurts them. His costume is made from the blankets, he was Superboy, he and Lex were once friends, Metropolis Clark is still very much a disguise, etc but they also kept Post-Crisis elements like the marriage (which I have always supported) and Lexcorp (which I've learned to live with), so if they return some of Superman's self-confidence and leadership abilities they might get him back where he belongs and make everybody happy. I hope they do in the comics and I've got to think a filmmaker as smart as Nolan will look through Superman's entire history and come up with a take that plays to all his strengths and stays away from the weaknesses. Until Nolan lets me down I say trust him.

[SuperFerret]

I still don't like him being Superboy first. Nor him and Lex being friends.

[The Batman]

I assume you meant Post-Crisis fare. None of those shows were ever huge because so much of the core concept was lost. Well that and a lot of other reasons. At least Smallville did explore the Lex/Superman relationship in a way that was somewhat close to the real thing.

Indeed I did. And one thing I'll say for Smallville is that it does incorporate a lot of elements from Superman's entire history.

[KaptainKrypton]

Either version of pre-crisis or post-crisis can work with the right storytelling. My favorite Superman stories of all time are still Alan Moore's pair of books to finish up the run before Byrne took over and de-powered Supes. As we've seen time and time again, though, the wrong writer can take either version and botch it (yes, I'm looking at you, Chuck Austen). I love that there are so many things to cull from, though. Seeing as it is a movie, we'll likely be getting something in line with what Goyer is all about, so...

[Daybreak_st]

Agreed. I truly think that the movie is the best chance of seeing a superman that can be interesting for a 21st century audience. WB should do what Waid did on Birthright. BR was such a good book because it felt like superman...just updated for the 21st century.

Bryne's superman is no longer modern or relevant, and its been proven not to work. And its interesting how shows based on pre crisis dont fare so well either. STAS was never as popular as BTAS, and most people wont even cite it as THE definitive Superman. Lois and Clark came and went, and smallville's mainly popular with teenage girls and comic fans...and after its ended, itll be forgotten as well.

I agree i think Birthright is a much better model to base a new film off of, but again they should draw from all of his history, i just feel like at this point Birthright is the best overall origin type story that draws from his history and uses what works best. I've enjoyed the various live action versions for different reasons. I loved the early seasons of Lois and Clark b/c it fleshed out their characters well, gave them real personality, and allowed their romance to grow organically. I'd love to see some things drawn from that version.

Also i enjoy smallville and the fact that they've done a solid job with his villains from the comic, Brainiac was particularly well done and while it drew from verious versions they developed him into something all their own. That's how i hope they approach the new film. Pull what works but move forward instead of slavishly trying to render something exactly from a specific era from the comics.

In recently reading the actual Bryne reboot i wasn't really impressed. I especially hate Lex. People should realize that the lex bryne introduced and the one that appeared in Lois and Clark and STAS only had Lexcorp in common. The character has evolved well and is currently well handled especially in SMallvillle (best live action luthor yet). But Byrne's Luthor was the Kingpin. He was fat, had no redeamable qualities, he slept with Perry's wife alice before they were married while she thought perry was missing in action overseas, he spanked a 15 year old lois after she broke into his place to steal evidence, and then watched a video of her being stripped searched...he was simply and awful character. If anything the Ruby spears lex may have had the most in common with this guy not quite sure. My the excellent lex beign portrayed by Paul Cornell in ACtion comics or the lex in Up, Up, and Away who was in a word Awesome! has nothing in common with Bryne's luthor except for his trust fund.

I will say the one thing i thought his reboot did well was make the story feel very grounded, it was obvious he drew from the films. His superman did evoke christopher reeve in his intereaction with common people. Also he had Superman fighting terrorists and even involved in destroying their home country's military.

Also i enjoy the supporting cast, particulary cat grant. I didn't like his lois however. He did a good job of fleshing out these supporting characters and their lives and gave clark some backstory between leaving kansas and becoming superman, i've always enjoyed the idea of him traveling the world. So this era certainly has some pluses, but as we've noted the good ideas continue to exist, for example he was travling the world in Birthright and in pretty much ever other incarnation that come sense. Bad ideas like Lex Luthor kingpin have been replaced with vastly more interesting super genius lex who happens to also run lexcorp.

I still don't like him being Superboy first. Nor him and Lex being friends.

Superboy adds nothing to Superman. He serves the legion of Superheroes and that's it. He helps them sell comics and exist but they don't help Superman in any way. I think the smallville approach about him doing heroic things as a teen without a costume is the most organic approach to his growth as a hero. Seigel and Shuster didn't originally envision Superboy anyway.

Indeed I did. And one thing I'll say for Smallville is that it does incorporate a lot of elements from Superman's entire history.

Agreed, the way they've approached smallville in drawing from his rich history is how the movie should be approached.

[The Question]

Yes and no, I think. There are a lot of things Man of Steel got right, and some it got wrong. I didn't like it's depiction of Krypton's culture (although I love the aesthetic, and I hope that stays), and Lex's personality was too bland and one dimensionally evil. Krypton should be a flawed society, why else would one of it's best scientists be ignored when he says that the planet is doomed, but not so obviously broken, almost to the point of parody. As for Lex... Lex being rich and woning a company makes sense. If he's really that smart, and I'm talking tactically/strategically here, and if he's really going to pose that big a threat to Superman, then it would make more sense that his subversive, reshape the world villainy was more behind the scenes, and he also did legitimate things with his intelligence to have resources and stave off suspicion. That being said, he should be more than a corrupt CEO. His plans should be much more global, his philosophy more akin to a futurist and Nietzschean humanist with a grand vision for himself and the world and an inherent desire to thumb his nose and and smashing the system, while using it's flaws to his advantage. And he should be a scientist, first and foremost. His company should be an extension of his being a scientist.

So what do you call wearing glasses when you don't need to? A fashion statement?

What would you call wearing blue tights and a cape when you don't need to?

[Kurosawa]

Yes and no, I think. There are a lot of things Man of Steel got right, and some it got wrong. I didn't like it's depiction of Krypton's culture (although I love the aesthetic, and I hope that stays), and Lex's personality was too bland and one dimensionally evil. Krypton should be a flawed society, why else would one of it's best scientists be ignored when he says that the planet is doomed, but not so obviously broken, almost to the point of parody. As for Lex... Lex being rich and woning a company makes sense. If he's really that smart, and I'm talking tactically/strategically here, and if he's really going to pose that big a threat to Superman, then it would make more sense that his subversive, reshape the world villainy was more behind the scenes, and he also did legitimate things with his intelligence to have resources and stave off suspicion. That being said, he should be more than a corrupt CEO. His plans should be much more global, his philosophy more akin to a futurist and Nietzschean humanist with a grand vision for himself and the world and an inherent desire to thumb his nose and and smashing the system, while using it's flaws to his advantage. And he should be a scientist, first and foremost. His company should be an extension of his being a scientist.

Well as I've said before I think the theft of Kandor played a bigger role in the Science Council's decision to not listen to Jor-El than is usually depicted. When it was stolen a new government had to be formed and it was probably more reactionary than the Kandor government. Also there may have been some degree of anger towards the House of El as Kryptonopolis was built by one of Superman's ancestors and they never made it a secret that they wanted the capitol moved there.

[The Question]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.

Well as I've said before I think the theft of Kandor played a bigger role in the Science Council's decision to not listen to Jor-El than is usually depicted. When it was stolen a new government had to be formed and it was probably more reactionary than the Kandor government. Also there may have been some degree of anger towards the House of El as Kryptonopolis was built by one of Superman's ancestors and they never made it a secret that they wanted the capitol moved there.

I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

[batman44]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.


Yes:up:

[SuperDaniel]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.

Bravo!!!! :up:

[SuperMike335!!]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.


Do you mind if people quote you on this next time the "real person" argument comes up?

Well said.


I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

That is interesting. There should be some reason why a civilization on their level was still only a class one, and not even a class 2 yet. By their technology (not to mention genetics) they should have been a level 3 long ago.

[The Question]

Do you mind if people quote you on this next time the "real person" argument comes up?

Of course not. It would feed my ego like human sacrifice and blood orgies feed a Lovercraftain god of insanity.

That is interesting. There should be some reason why a civilization on their level was still only a class one, and not even a class 2 yet. By their technology (not to mention genetics) they should have been a level 3 long ago.

It just makes the most sense to me. Major societal flaws, but not to the point of being a caricature. I think it would make the most sense if they had had a big intergalactic war with another race in the past, which they won but only barely, leading to several conflicting schools of thought in regards to Kryptonain supremacy and their inherent racial and cultural guilt for whatever atrocities their ancestors might have committed, which, combined with the negative attitude nearby species might have towards them and the Kryptonian government playing up jingoism for public support, would lead to a very arrogant and isolationist society, but one that still functions like a society should, unlike Byrne's version. It also seems like the kind of place where the government would laugh off their smartest scientist just because he suggests that there's something coming that they can't fix, and where a person like Zod can become a powerful figure in the military.

[The Sage]

I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

I did too. It's one of the reasons I prefer a more colorful and idyllic looking Krypton. It makes its destruction all the more tragic and it helps as a reminder to Superman about not letting his power make him arrogant.

[The Batman]

I find it funny that the same people who agree with Question are the same people who would agree with "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do"

[batman44]

I find it funny that the same people who agree with Question are the same people who would agree with "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do"

No I don't.

[Kurosawa]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.



I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

You are right in places and I disagree in others, but he has to be Clark AND Superman for the series to work. If they are the exact same person then Superman is the exact same character as every other superhero. But he's not. And nothing personal at all, but if I'm quoting anyone on the Superman/Clark Kent issue, it will be Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, Quentin Tarantino, etc. I'm pretty sure those guys understand how well written fiction works, and I'm also pretty sure John Byrne is an overrated hack, and it was him and Frank Miller (who clearly hates Superman) who cooked up the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" BS. So I'll take my cues from people like Maggin who wrote Superman for over 10 years or Jerry Siegel who ONLY created the character. Again, nothing personal, but I'll take the opinions of the best of the best and my favorite Superman writer of all time over anyone on an internet message board.

I find it funny that the same people who agree with Question are the same people who would agree with "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do"

Anything to destroy classic, traditional Superman I guess. These are the same types of people who, before Byrne, would have or did hate Superman. It's basically more deconstructionist crap. Only comics fans are so determined to undermine and destroy that which they claim to love. It's freaking amazing. Batman fans get it so much more than Superman fans that it isn't even funny. It's a big part of why Batman has become God and Superman has become an irrelevant joke. Batman fans understand that the foundation laid down by Finger and Kane is essential for Batman to work. Superman fans-or many of them-seem to regard Siegel and Shuster as nothing but two dead old guys who name is in the credits. Batman is so lucky to not have such a bad schism in his fanbase...not even Spider-Man fans are as divided as Superman fans are IMO. DC clearly knows this and that is why they are trying this hybrid version with classic elements like Superboy and elements Byrne shippers like such as Lexcorp. Except for Morrison who got Superman about 90% right in All-Star Superman, however, there is no one else around that seems up to the task or writing Superman for comics. Certainly JMS is not good enough as Grounded as shown so far. Superman is in bad need of writers who get him.

[dru-zod2501]

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?
I don't know anything about basing it on MoS, but in light of all ones that have come before (which you already know many people are going to look at this movie through the prism of the past) the part I highlighted is one of the most logical approaches to take. To date we haven't seen either of those things on the big screen, so it would be the most elementary way to set itself apart.

I personally prefer mad scientist Lex over corporate Lex, and Superman as the real, but it's time to do something different and I do want to see Lexcorp someday.

[Kurosawa]

I don't know anything about basing it on MoS, but in light of all ones that have come before (which you already know many people are going to look at this movie through the prism of the past) the part I highlighted is one of the most logical approaches to take. To date we haven't seen either of those things on the big screen, so it would be the most elementary way to set itself apart.

I personally prefer mad scientist Lex over corporate Lex, and Superman as the real, but it's time to do something different and I do want to see Lexcorp someday.

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing Lexcorp, but Lex in the Donner/Singer movies wasn't anything like Pre or Post-Crisis Lex. He was more of a comical criminal conman and to be honest he reminded me more of Burgess Meridith's Penguin from the Batman TV series than any version of Luthor. Very weak villain played by two very great actors. Superman as the real was done, but I like the more nuanced take where Superman is both best, and I've never liked anything with Clark as the real. That's not Superman.

[SuperMike335!!]

You are right in places and I disagree in others, but he has to be Clark AND Superman for the series to work. If they are the exact same person then Superman is the exact same character as every other superhero. But he's not. And nothing personal at all, but if I'm quoting anyone on the Superman/Clark Kent issue, it will be Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, Quentin Tarantino, etc. I'm pretty sure those guys understand how well written fiction works, and I'm also pretty sure John Byrne is an overrated hack, and it was him and Frank Miller (who clearly hates Superman) who cooked up the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" BS. So I'll take my cues from people like Maggin who wrote Superman for over 10 years or Jerry Siegel who ONLY created the character. Again, nothing personal, but I'll take the opinions of the best of the best and my favorite Superman writer of all time over anyone on an internet message board.


Wow, that reads no different than "not to sound racist buuuut". You know, the kind that always preceed a racist comment.

Instead its just not personal, but your opinion does not matter to the great myself.

You're always trying to justify why your opinion is more valid than the person you are quoting.

That is more than not agreeing, and it looks self-righteous.

By YOUR own logic he could take HIS favorite Superman writer over you opinion too. :woot:

[The Question]

I find it funny that the same people who agree with Question are the same people who would agree with "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do"

Yeah, that's kind of silly too. Clark obviously gets something out of being Superman, other than fulfilling his responsibilities, that he couldn't as just plain old Clark. But the reverse is also true.

You are right in places and I disagree in others, but he has to be Clark AND Superman for the series to work. If they are the exact same person then Superman is the exact same character as every other superhero. But he's not. And nothing personal at all, but if I'm quoting anyone on the Superman/Clark Kent issue, it will be Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, Quentin Tarantino, etc. I'm pretty sure those guys understand how well written fiction works, and I'm also pretty sure John Byrne is an overrated hack, and it was him and Frank Miller (who clearly hates Superman) who cooked up the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" BS. So I'll take my cues from people like Maggin who wrote Superman for over 10 years or Jerry Siegel who ONLY created the character. Again, nothing personal, but I'll take the opinions of the best of the best and my favorite Superman writer of all time over anyone on an internet message board.

Quoting Quentin Tarantino for Superman doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Superman speech from Kill Bill was given by the main villain of the film to showcase the character's misanthropy. I doubt it was meant to be a serious analysis of the character on Tarantino's part, just a subject that would make for a good showcase of Bill's cynicism.

Wow, that reads no different than "not to sound racist buuuut". You know, the kind that always preceed a racist comment.

Instead its just not personal, but your opinion does not matter to the great myself.

You're always trying to justify why your opinion is more valid than the person you are quoting.

That is more than not agreeing, and it looks self-righteous.

By YOUR own logic he could take HIS favorite Superman writer over you opinion too. :woot:

I do have to agree, Mr. Kurosawa. You did kind of make it sound like my opinion doesn't matter simply because I'm not one of the six Superman related writers that you like. Which is kind of rude. Just because I'm not a published author doesn't mean I don't know anything about literature.

[Kurosawa]

Wow, that reads no different than "not to sound racist buuuut". You know, the kind that always preceed a racist comment.

Instead its just not personal, but your opinion does not matter to the great myself.

You're always trying to justify why your opinion is more valid than the person you are quoting.

That is more than not agreeing, and it looks self-righteous.

By YOUR own logic he could take HIS favorite Superman writer over you opinion too. :woot:

Oh good grief. Dramatic much? I think The Question can defend himself. And what, are you implying I'm a racist or something? That is one of the most insulting replies to any post that I've ever made. Look, we disagree. Fine. I'm going to state my case as to why I'm right. And yes, I am trying to justify why my opinion is more valid. Do you know why? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU DEBATE. You state your position and THEN you give facts and quotes and the opinions of writers you respect to back it up. Instead of criticizing me and insulting me on a personal level (like you are falsely accusing me of doing), you could always try to make your case as to why I am wrong and Jerry Siegel had it wrong when he created Superman and made Superman the real personality and Clark a disguise.

The deconstructionist movement is just amazing. No wonder it was so easy for them to tear Superman down. The characters own fans handed them the picks and axes to do it with. All of this bickering-on both sides-is part of why Superman is so bogged down. But DC and John Byrne started it when they decided to tear every ounce of Siegel's vision away from the character in 1986. You take away the Clark Kent that Siegel created, you are in effect taking him and Shuster out of the strip. That's why I find it so disgusting and insulting.

Yeah, that's kind of silly too. Clark obviously gets something out of being Superman, other than fulfilling his responsibilities, that he couldn't as just plain old Clark. But the reverse is also true.



Quoting Quentin Tarantino for Superman doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Superman speech from Kill Bill was given by the main villain of the film to showcase the character's misanthropy. I doubt it was meant to be a serious analysis of the character on Tarantino's part, just a subject that would make for a good showcase of Bill's cynicism.



I do have to agree, Mr. Kurosawa. You did kind of make it sound like my opinion doesn't matter simply because I'm not one of the six Superman related writers that you like. Which is kind of rude. Just because I'm not a published author doesn't mean I don't know anything about literature.

Well, I took a bunch of lit classes and got an English degree, but I'm not going to discount the opinions of writers I respect greatly, and I don't know why anyone would. Maybe I did come off a bit snippy and for that I apologize. Tarantino wrote Bill's speech almost word from word from Feiffer's book and while parts of it reflected Bill's character, most of it was actually accurate IMO. My main exception with it is that I think Clark Kent is more Superman's tribute and love letter to the human race than his criticism of it. I feel I know quite a bit about literature and more precisely, comics literature (which is entirely different from other forms of literature) myself. You and I actually agree more on Superman than I do with some other people who are actually Byrne shippers, which you certainly are not. So I have no problems with you and we've always disagreed in an amicable manner at least. Again, my apologies.

[The Question]

The deconstructionist movement is just amazing. No wonder it was so easy for them to tear Superman down. The characters own fans handed them the picks and axes to do it with. All of this bickering-on both sides-is part of why Superman is so bogged down. But DC and John Byrne started it when they decided to tear every ounce of Siegel's vision away from the character in 1986. You take away the Clark Kent that Siegel created, you are in effect taking him and Shuster out of the strip. That's why I find it so disgusting and insulting.

There's nothing wrong with deconstruction. You deconstruct a character or genre so you can understand their strengths and weaknesses and then go on to do them better.

Well, I took a bunch of lit classes and got an English degree, but I'm not going to discount the opinions of writers I respect greatly, and I don't know why anyone would. Maybe I did come off a bit snippy and for that I apologize. Tarantino wrote Bill's speech almost word from word from Feiffer's book and while parts of it reflected Bill's character, most of it was actually accurate IMO. My main exception with it is that I think Clark Kent is more Superman's tribute and love letter to the human race than his criticism of it. I feel I know quite a bit about literature and more precisely, comics literature (which is entirely different from other forms of literature) myself. You and I actually agree more on Superman than I do with some other people who are actually Byrne shippers, which you certainly are not. So I have no problems with you and we've always disagreed in an amicable manner at least. Again, my apologies.

It's cool.

I still do think it's a bad idea to reference Tarantino, simply because it hurts your credibility. The scene isn't supposed to say anything about Superman, it was supposed to say something about Bill. Namely that he's a cynical *******.

[SuperDaniel]

Pff I can`t even begin to think why somebody would like that half-assed explanation for Superman in Kill Bill.

A Superman who looks down on humankind? Clark Kent, the bumblin fool, a critique on humankind? LMFAO.

And how a disguise, a bumbling fool, would EVER be a love letter to mankind I have no idea...

Oh, how about a god that lives his life as a human, is damn proud of it and, at the same time, protects everything that`s good about this planet? Now this IS the love letter.

Question said it best: Clark Kent is Superman is Clark Kent. Both are real. Period. No masks, no disguises. Just layers, shades of the same character.


To simplify a very deep character like Superman that has many layers is to take away a lot of what makes him unique.

Anyways, i don`t care if its based on pre-crisis, post-crisis. They should find a middle term. What this movie needs to have is heart and an uplifting feeling like Superman for all seasons. That is to me the quintessential Superman story. Simple, humble, beautiful, just like the character. Not the overrated All-Star Superman and Morrison`s crazyness or Geoff Johns Sucky Origins. I even like Lois & Clark and Superman TAS over Superman the movie.

Disagree what you may. Thats how i view things and a internet forum isn`t gonna change that. I`m just a fan of the character, not the owner of the truth and nor do i shove my degrees and inflated ego down people`s throat...

[TruerToTheCore]

And how a disguise, a bumbling fool, would EVER be a love letter to mankind I have no idea...

And what has this guy to do with the pre-crisis Clark Kent?

You will never learn. :dry:

Ever noticed that the post-crisis fans always talk down the pre-crisis Superman and hate on the concept itself, while pre-crisis fans usually just point out what they feel is wrong with the Byrne version and why it doesn't fit Superman? :huh: Byrne's take is certainly not a bad character and offered some good stories, but he is just nothing special. He is one of many superheroes.

[SuperDaniel]

So the bumblin fool isn`t pre-crisis? A Clark Kent that is a total fabrication, acts like an idiot all the time to throw away suspicion and someone who Lois would never fall in love with, making their relationship NEVER work?

okaaaay....

That`a why we got amnesia kiss in Superman II and why the relationship between Lois & Superman works so MUCH better in Lois & Clark and in Smallville.

There at least Clark has heart and is real, not just a total fabrication. In fact, i`m loving what Smallville is doing. Lois always knowing the secret from the start and she might even help develop the personas.

[JAK®]

Pre-Crisis Clark Kent is MILD MANNERED. The bumbling fool appeared only in Christopher Reeve's incarnation, and was adapted in All Star Superman.

The only people who don't seem to know this are the ones who argue against Pre-Crisis Superman...

[The Sage]

So the bumblin fool isn`t pre-crisis? A Clark Kent that is a total fabrication, acts like an idiot all the time to throw away suspicion and someone who Lois would never fall in love with, making their relationship NEVER work?

okaaaay....


As everyone said, the bumbling fool is Donner's interpretation, not the pre-crisis version. And I'd personally prefer Lois to fall in love with Superman over Clark Kent.


There at least Clark has heart and is real, not just a total fabrication. In fact, i`m loving what Smallville is doing. Lois always knowing the secret from the start and she might even help develop the personas.

If that happens, weeeaaaaaak. :doh:

[The Question]

You know, Kurosawa, I must say, discussing this with you has made me look deeper at Superman's character and identity than I have in the past, for which I must thank you. And I do agree, there is a certain uniqueness to Superman in that regard, although I view it a little differently than you do. The way I see it, yes, Spider-Man is pretty much just a more talkative Peter Parker wearing a mask. But with Superman... Clark needs to be Clark, to have a life like that and be invested in the world he was raised in and the human identity he was raised in, in order to be happy. So that's who he really is. Clark needs to be Superman, to fulfill his responsibilities and use his abilities to their fullest extend, showing off every part of him that would otherwise be hidden to the world and have a chance to reach beyond the limits of a normal human being. So Superman is who he really is. These are not contradictory statements about the character, these are the same truth about him. He's a complicated man. And I like that a lot.

[JAK®]

Another thing people need to realise is that there are FOUR identities;

Farmboy Clark Kent, the man raised by the Kents, the true personality who uses his powers casually, does not wear glasses, and his home is in Smallville.

Superman, basically a more serious Farmboy Kent who is assertive, authoritative and determined at his job.

Daily Planet Clark Kent, a disguise made of glasses, ill-fitting suits and a timid, mild-mannered nature.

Kal-El, the side of Superman that desires to know more about his Kryptonian heritage, who has inherited his scientific curiosity from his father, Jor-El.

So yes, Clark Kent is who he is, but Superman is not just 'what he can do'. It is Clark being himself, but in a way that protects the ones he loves.

[The Question]

Another thing people need to realise is that there are FOUR identities;

Farmboy Clark Kent, the man raised by the Kents, the true personality who uses his powers casually, does not wear glasses, and his home is in Smallville.

Superman, basically a more serious Farmboy Kent who is assertive, authoritative and determined at his job.

Daily Planet Clark Kent, a disguise made of glasses, ill-fitting suits and a timid, mild-mannered nature.

Kal-El, the side of Superman that desires to know more about his Kryptonian heritage, who has inherited his scientific curiosity from his father, Jor-El.

So yes, Clark Kent is who he is, but Superman is not just 'what he can do'. It is Clark being himself, but in a way that protects the ones he loves.

Y'see, I think that's getting way to poetical. He's one guy. One singular individual. He's not dissociative. He just wants a lot of things.

[JAK®]

Well, I'm open to other interpretations. But there is one thing that I will NEVER agree on;

That Clark Kent as he appears at the Daily Planet is in any way, shape or form, not a disguise and the true personality of the character.

[SuperDaniel]

Pre-Crisis Clark Kent is MILD MANNERED. The bumbling fool appeared only in Christopher Reeve's incarnation, and was adapted in All Star Superman.

The only people who don't seem to know this are the ones who argue against Pre-Crisis Superman...
LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.


Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.

[SuperDaniel]

Well, I'm open to other interpretations. But there is one thing that I will NEVER agree on;

That Clark Kent as he appears at the Daily Planet is in any way, shape or form, not a disguise and the true personality of the character.
Meh. I'd rather think he loves being a reporter and uses writing to change the world too. The pen is mightier than the sword, as the say. So yeah, he is real too. He just hides some aspects of his life like we all do in our everyday lives.

[The Question]

Well, I'm open to other interpretations. But there is one thing that I will NEVER agree on;

That Clark Kent as he appears at the Daily Planet is in any way, shape or form, not a disguise and the true personality of the character.

But the thing is, I think it is. Just as much as the persona he puts on as Superman is his true self. There would be no point in having either if one didn't speak to a part of his life he needs to express. Yes, he affects his mannerisms and voice in both to make them seem like distinct people. But he has the Superman identity, as well as the normal life and job of Clark Kent, to be true to himself. He's not a guy pretending to be something he's not, he's a guy with a lot of layers and conflicting desires who does what he can to keep the different parts of his life separate so he can keep all of them.

[SuperDaniel]

I don`t know how people could possibly like any one-dimensional characterization of Superman, Question. It makes so much sense for them all to be real, just different layers. The beauty is in the details...

[The Sage]

Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.

Meh, I wouldn't go that far.

In my mind, this is how it would play out. Superman and Lois fall in love with each other, Superman then reveals to her that's he's Clark Kent as well. Then at some point, Clark Kent and Lois start dating publicly.

I don`t know how people could possibly like any one-dimensional characterization of Superman, Question. It makes so much sense for them all to be real, just different layers. The beauty is in the details...

That's pretty much what they're getting at, that all of them are real, except the mild-mannered Clark Kent is more of a persona than the rest of them, and hardly less one-dimensional.

[The Sage]

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.


Interesting enough, apparently Marvel really only started beating Superman in sales once the alteration to the Superman/Clark Kent persona was made, almost as if to say, Superman is more fascinating when his unique duality is intact.

That...and a lot of authors just don't know how to write him.

[Daybreak_st]

Also i'm of the mindset that once he started gaining his abilities etc being able to see the microscopic makeup of people, read their dna, fly, see untold wonders beneath the ocean, he'd experience character growth beyond that of growing up on a farm. I think he starts out as Clark KEnt raised by the kents, but once the powers come the Kal-el personality starts to come out a bit more. He starts to see the world through alien eyes although filtered through a more human perspective. I think it's that merger of clark (guy he was raised as) and kal-el (his unique alien experience of life on earth with his powers) would allow him to emerge as Superman, the perfect combo of the two. Superman is clark at his heroic best. While i also think the unique viewpoint would result in kind of a science geek personality for clark, he'd be facinated with the things he can do and see.

That aspect of his personality isn't shown to everyone but as Metropolis clark he can let his inner geek shine a little bit and he enjoys it. While as Superman he's all hero, the guy people and trust and rely on. When he relaxed he's a bit of the clark kent that grew up in smallville if he's around his folks or someone who knows his secret, but if he's at the fortress you'd get more of Kal-el, the unique alien parts he can finally let show, and do things that would normally freak people out.



Your experiences change you. People who don't grow are mostly people who have just stayed in the same place with the same circustances their whole life. People who do travel, experience different things, grow and change. Just look at Bruce Wayne, isnt' that what the entire concept of BAtman is based on, him traveling the world gaining all these skills and insight to finally emerege as batman. He's not the same kid who left gotham.

But with Superman it's so much more than simply traveling, it's a fundamental change in how he literally sees the world once his power emerge. I mean, it's like what Johnathan told clark "once you start defying gravity i think we're in new territory". Seriously one trip into outer space, being able to see the whole earth would make such a huge impression on him. Then his speed, his eyesight, he'd simply be facinated by what he can do, and would (i would think) be something of scientist with his unqiue observations, etc. At least that's how i see it.



I think Clark Kent with his parents is very much the person he was raised to be, he'd joke, have fun ect. but a part of him, the part that started to develop with his powers would be a little lonely, knowing that no one else would ever know what it's like to be him. He'd also be facinated with being an alien and what that means. That part is Kal-el. I don't think he'd need to constanly complain etc, but there woudl be something a little tragic about having the most unique vision of the world that no one else could fully understand/ appreciate. And being a human who gains powers vs being a alien, who finds out he's the last of his race would also enhance/inform his experience and viewpoint.

I think that's the part that develops during his late teens early adulthood before superman. It's at that time that he's traveling the world trying to figure what he should do etc. Then i think it's him finding that balance in his two halves that gives him some peace of mind and allows him to emerge as Superman.

The clark kent in metropolis is basically letting the geek side out, enjoying his friends etc but with a mild mannered toned down persona. The smallville clark is the same person but more outgoing etc.

Kal-el is the alien part of Clark, but especially after he finds some answers to his questions, learns about krypton, finds the fortress etc. The fortress allows him to find out more about his heritage, his people, that his dad was a scientist, etc. The fortress let's him explore/embrace a side of himself that began to emerge as a teen but he never understood.

Superman is clark as his heroic best once he's come to terms with Kal-el. It's him using all of his kryptonian gifts in the service of mankind. But it's also him putting on his "best" forward so to speak. Like a cop or fireman, he's not showing his vulnerability, issues etc. It's his "best". Clark let's him have those issues/ vulnerabilites etc.

I posted all the stuff above and still think it's the most organic approach to the character. There's an internal logic there shows clark as a very complex and interesting character. People say Superman is boring etc. , but not if he's approached as written above.

I agree the argument about who's real and who isn't is silly, it's just aspects of his personality brought out at different times depending on the setting/circumstances. I think his depth of character that allows him to have such complex layers. It truly is a facinating character.

The line from Kill Bill is just lame. Look at clark kent in smallville, one of the biggest complaints against the series is his lack of "supermanness" or not acting much like superman during those middle seasons b/c of his reluctant attitude etc. According to Bill all his needs is some powers and bam he's superman, but that's a lie. Its what he chooses to do with those powers that makes him Superman. Otherwise any kryptonian would basically be Superman. It's not just about the powers but his attitude, inspiration, all the things he represents that makes Superman the symbol that he is. Just a guy with powers wouldn't cut it.

One interpretation I have is Clark starts off the real person, a mild mannered, meek person, as a result of Clark living his life hiding his powers from people and having to live as an ordinary human. When he starts helping people and becomes Superman, a hidden side of him is revealed, someone more confident and assertive. But in order to not arouse suspicion, he continues to be the Clark he was growing up. So what was once a genuine personality sortof becomes a disguise.

I like this approach to the character as well. Very organic. I think that's the key to really getting an audience to believe in the character, relate, etc. make his growth organic rather than artificial.

[JAK®]

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?What about in Action Comics #1 where Superman can't fly?

Golden Age Superman isn't the same thing as Pre-Crisis Superman.

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.You're assuming a lot if you think Clark Kent, as he appears at the DAILY PLANET, is Superman pretending to be a human like the interpretation offered in Kill Bill.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.
It's only one dimensional to you because you don't understand it. That's okay, not everyone gets Superman. 'Unrelatable god', that's the mantra of those who just don't get it. Go read Spider-Man instead. Or post-crisis Superman, who was made to be more like Spider-Man.

I don't see how making the Clark/Superman identity just like every other superhero ever makes the character more interesting.

[TruerToTheCore]

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

He wasn't the bravest (like most people), but that's about it.

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

I disagree. In the Silver and Bronze Age there has always been something about Clark that even Superman couldn't deny. But you would know if you actually bothered to read the stories.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.

Again, the man with no knowledge uses big and loud words. Spider-Man (and Marvel) didn't even nearly sell as much as DC (especially Superman) in the 60s and early 70s. And Batman's "Detective Comics" was close to being canceled after the Adam West show hype was over (although the sales back then would be an outstanding success for 2010) and that lasted until the end of the 70s. The only thing that saved the title was that the producing stuff could convince the business staff that the book had some historical and cultural importance.


Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.[/QUOTE]

[The Batman]

Interesting enough, apparently Marvel really only started beating Superman in sales once the alteration to the Superman/Clark Kent persona was made, almost as if to say, Superman is more fascinating when his unique duality is intact.

That...and a lot of authors just don't know how to write him.

Sage....post crisis fanboys dont like to admit that post crisis is when superman lost his popularity. You make a great point, but hes just gonna ignore it.

The sad thing is, SuperDaniel claims that he just loves the character, but he clearly only loves one version of it. Saying you want a middle ground, and then turning around and saying "It should be like that post crisis story for all seasons, not like the more balanced All Star or Secret Origins" is not middle ground at all.

[Kurosawa]

There's nothing wrong with deconstruction. You deconstruct a character or genre so you can understand their strengths and weaknesses and then go on to do them better.

I feel the deconstructionist movement in superhero comics has marginalized them to the point where they are basically nothing but ads and pitches for movies. Comics have certainly moved from being a mainstream product to being a niche product with an ever shrinking fanbase. No responsible parent would allow their children to read modern superhero comics series like Siege or Infinite Crisis. Even Alan Moore admits that he made mistakes by leading such a movement. He meant for people to try new things as he did, not ape Watchmen with every other series for the next 25 years.

I still do think it's a bad idea to reference Tarantino, simply because it hurts your credibility. The scene isn't supposed to say anything about Superman, it was supposed to say something about Bill. Namely that he's a cynical *******.

Maybe so, but I'll just throw these quotes out there once again:


For Superman, it’s mild-mannered reporter Clark Kent that’s the disguise – the thing he aspires to, the thing he can never be. He really is that hero, and he’ll never be one of us. But we love him for trying. We love him for wanting to protect us from everything, including his own transcendence. He plays the bumbling, lovelorn Kent so that we regular folks can feel, just for a moment, super.


The particular brilliance of Superman lay not only in the fact that he was the first of the super-heroes, but in the concept of his alter ego. What made Superman different from the legion of imitators to follow was not that when he took off his clothes he could beat up everybody—they all did that. What made Superman extraordinary was his point of origin: Clark Kent.

Remember, Kent was not Superman's true identity as Bruce Wayne was the Batman's or (on radio) Lamont Cranston the Shadow's. Just the opposite. Clark Kent was the fiction.

Superman had only to wake up in the morning to be Superman. In his case, Clark Kent was the put-on. The fellow with the eyeglasses and the acne and the walk girls laughed at wasn't real, didn't exist, was a sacrificial disguise, an act of discreet martyrdom. Had they but known!


Clark Kent is Superman's demon—I said that specifically in the second book. I've always thought of him that way. Superman is the real person and Clark is the construct. Clark is a brilliant character and the creation of Superman. My take on Clark is a lot like what Chris Reeve said Clark was when he did the first movie: "Either Superman is a consummate actor or Lois Lane is an idiot. I don't want Lois to be an idiot, so Superman must be a good actor."
Everybody has a demon, everybody has a hobby, a habit that is part of his character and he can't break. Superman's is Clark. Mine is writing, Bill Clinton's is the saxophone, Jimmy Carter had to teach Sunday School, even when he was president. Luthor's demon is Superman. Superman needs Clark the way most of us need dreams.

I think the idea that Clark is the real character and Superman is a device is completely wrong-headed—because at some point, Clark has to die... and probably Superman won't, at least not permanently. I did a prose story for Martin Greenberg, for one of the anthologies he's putting together, that explores the triangle among Clark, Lois and Superman, over the course of about 150 years. Lois lives to be about 125 in my continuity and Luthor lives another 50. Superman tells the story hundreds of years in the future, as a great grey eminence flying through space, looking for a world to live in. It's the Superman/Lois love story... and Clark is an addendum to it. I think that's the way it is. Clark is there to make Superman accessible. Not the other way around.


Clark Kent grew not only out of my private life, but also out of Joe Shuster's. As a high school student, I thought that someday I might become a reporter, and I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn't know I existed or didn't care I existed. So it occured to me: What if I was really terrific? What if I had something special going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that?

One night, when all the thoughts were coming to me, the concept came to me that Superman could have a dual identity, and that in one of his identities he could be meek and mild, as I was, and wear glasses, the way I do. The heroine, who I figured would be some kind of girl reporter, would think he was some kind of worm; yet she would be crazy about this Superman character who could do all sorts of fabulous things. In fact, she was real wild about him, and a big inside joke was that the fellow she was crazy about was also the fellow whom she loathed.

And what has this guy to do with the pre-crisis Clark Kent?

You will never learn. :dry:

Ever noticed that the post-crisis fans always talk down the pre-crisis Superman and hate on the concept itself, while pre-crisis fans usually just point out what they feel is wrong with the Byrne version and why it doesn't fit Superman? :huh: Byrne's take is certainly not a bad character and offered some good stories, but he is just nothing special. He is one of many superheroes.

I've always seen his character as a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid. Certainly his massive size, extreme naivete and farm boy background was cribbed completely from Colossus. And a lot of the scenes with Ma and Pa Kent felt like they wondered in from Spider-Man.

Pre-Crisis Clark Kent is MILD MANNERED. The bumbling fool appeared only in Christopher Reeve's incarnation, and was adapted in All Star Superman.

The only people who don't seem to know this are the ones who argue against Pre-Crisis Superman...

Yeah, it's a case of ignorance in many cases, but also DC themselves pushed this canard in order to justify what they were doing. I remember this scene from a really great "Private Life of Clark Kent" story:

http://superman.nu/tales4/home/6.gif

The last panel really says it all about Clark to me.

You know, Kurosawa, I must say, discussing this with you has made me look deeper at Superman's character and identity than I have in the past, for which I must thank you. And I do agree, there is a certain uniqueness to Superman in that regard, although I view it a little differently than you do. The way I see it, yes, Spider-Man is pretty much just a more talkative Peter Parker wearing a mask. But with Superman... Clark needs to be Clark, to have a life like that and be invested in the world he was raised in and the human identity he was raised in, in order to be happy. So that's who he really is. Clark needs to be Superman, to fulfill his responsibilities and use his abilities to their fullest extend, showing off every part of him that would otherwise be hidden to the world and have a chance to reach beyond the limits of a normal human being. So Superman is who he really is. These are not contradictory statements about the character, these are the same truth about him. He's a complicated man. And I like that a lot.

It really is a very complex thing. I feel that Clark is in many ways Superman's softer side. I also like how Maggin describes Jonathan Kent himself as being mild-mannered, and that Clark takes after his father in many ways. Jonathan is said to be a man who seems very reserved but when need be he could step in and calmly, confidently make things work.

Interesting enough, apparently Marvel really only started beating Superman in sales once the alteration to the Superman/Clark Kent persona was made, almost as if to say, Superman is more fascinating when his unique duality is intact.

That...and a lot of authors just don't know how to write him.

Yeah, all through the 60's and well into the 70's the Superman line was way ahead in sales. If not they would have tinkered with things more like they did with Batman. It was only in the early 80's when years of Marvel's propaganda finally convinced DC that they didn't need to be themselves anymore.

What about in Action Comics #1 where Superman can't fly?

Golden Age Superman isn't the same thing as Pre-Crisis Superman.

You're assuming a lot if you think Clark Kent, as he appears at the DAILY PLANET, is Superman pretending to be a human like the interpretation offered in Kill Bill.


It's only one dimensional to you because you don't understand it. That's okay, not everyone gets Superman. 'Unrelatable god', that's the mantra of those who just don't get it. Go read Spider-Man instead. Or post-crisis Superman, who was made to be more like Spider-Man.

I don't see how making the Clark/Superman identity just like every other superhero ever makes the character more interesting.

Yeah, it really is a shame. They took a one of a kind and made him just another face in the crowd.

He wasn't the bravest (like most people), but that's about it.


I disagree. In the Silver and Bronze Age there has always been something about Clark that even Superman couldn't deny. But you would know if you actually bothered to read the stories.


Again, the man with no knowledge uses big and loud words. Spider-Man (and Marvel) didn't even nearly sell as much as DC (especially Superman) in the 60s and early 70s. And Batman's "Detective Comics" was close to being canceled after the Adam West show hype was over (although the sales back then would be an outstanding success for 2010) and that lasted until the end of the 70s. The only thing that saved the title was that the producing stuff could convince the business staff that the book had some historical and cultural importance.


Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and Jerry Siegel himself had planned for her to learn the secret very early on. I have my issues with L&C but the relationship itself was played out well once she knew the secret. And she was the best Lois ever, although Erica Durance on Smallville is terrific too.

Sage....post crisis fanboys dont like to admit that post crisis is when superman lost his popularity. You make a great point, but hes just gonna ignore it.

The sad thing is, SuperDaniel claims that he just loves the character, but he clearly only loves one version of it. Saying you want a middle ground, and then turning around and saying "It should be like that post crisis story for all seasons, not like the more balanced All Star or Secret Origins" is not middle ground at all.

I really feel bad for people who never knew the real thing. It was awesome growing up in a time when Superman was recognized as 100% the MAN and there was no debate except a debate of who might be #2. Supes was the Beatles and they turned him into Styx. I just don't get it, mostly because whenever I get interested in anything I try to learn all I can about it, not just limit myself to a very small sample.

[SuperDaniel]

Thats funny you quote Jerry Siegel because he is saying that BOTH are real, LIKE WHAT I`VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. lol JUST READ THE GODDAMN QUOTE!!

Dual identity. He`s both. Mild-mannered, real, humble. Like we all are, normal human beings. That is a perfect description. And then he uses his powers for good to help mankind as Superman. That how he was portrayed in Lois & Clark and post-crisis, imo. People just should bother to read instead of criticizing. :rolleyes:

HOWEVER,

That is quite different from Chris Reeve's and Maggin's definition in which they say Superman is the greatest actor ever. Its BS to me.

[The Question]

I feel the deconstructionist movement in superhero comics has marginalized them to the point where they are basically nothing but ads and pitches for movies. Comics have certainly moved from being a mainstream product to being a niche product with an ever shrinking fanbase. No responsible parent would allow their children to read modern superhero comics series like Siege or Infinite Crisis. Even Alan Moore admits that he made mistakes by leading such a movement. He meant for people to try new things as he did, not ape Watchmen with every other series for the next 25 years.

I think deconstruction of super hero comics and the recent push for media adaptations really aren't related at all. The super hero movie trend was started simply because they decided to adapt X-Men and Spider-Man and both proved to be insanely successful, so all the movie studios tried to get in on it. Then when things started to peter off, Iron Man and Nolan's Batman showed up and breathed new life into the genre for films.

I also disagree about comics moving from the mainstream. The exact opposite has happened. Comic books are more mainstream than they're ever been. For the longest time, comic books were thought of as simply for dumb kids. And then, after that, for dumb kids and childish nerdy adults. It's pretty recent that liking comics as a mature and well rounded adult isn't considered that weird, and that comics actually come up in serious discussions of literature.

As for the idea that no responsible parent would allow their kids to read Seige or Infinite Crisis... that's a pretty big blanket statement. Wether or not a kid should read that stuff is entirely dependent on the level of maturity that kid is at. I do agree, however, that mainstream comics do make it harder to appeal to a wider audience than they used to.

As for deconstruction itself... I think it's a beautiful thing. When used responsibly. Of course, the idea of deconstructing super heroes resulted in copy and past watered down rip offs of Watchmen and DKR. But that happens in any medium when something is critically acclaimed and a big seller, you really can't fight it. Doesn't mean deconstruction is invalid. Watchmen paved the way for comics like Planetary, Kingdom Come, Astro City, and Invincible. The point of deconstructing a genre is to understand it inside and out, become comfortable with and fiddle around with it's strengths and weaknesses, so you can build it back up better than it was before. A few bad seeds shouldn't have to ruin things for everyone.

I've always seen his character as a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid. Certainly his massive size, extreme naivete and farm boy background was cribbed completely from Colossus. And a lot of the scenes with Ma and Pa Kent felt like they wondered in from Spider-Man.

I don't see it, really. I honestly don't think Superman being naive is as big a problem as you make it out to be. Maybe I've just been reading the better Superman stories from the past 25 years, but I very rarely have seen him portrayed as anything other than an intelligent, resourceful man who enjoys a quiet, simple personal life. As for Spider-Man... the dynamic between Clark and his parents is completely different from the dynamic between Peter and Aunt May. The only real similarity is "talking to at least one of the people who raised him." And that's not new, or unique to either character.

It really is a very complex thing. I feel that Clark is in many ways Superman's softer side. I also like how Maggin describes Jonathan Kent himself as being mild-mannered, and that Clark takes after his father in many ways. Jonathan is said to be a man who seems very reserved but when need be he could step in and calmly, confidently make things work.

The more we talk about it, the more I feel that, at least in terms of Superman's personality, we more or less agree, we just articulate it differently.

[Kurosawa]

Thats funny you quote Jerry Siegel because he is saying that BOTH are real, LIKE WHAT I`VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. lol JUST READ THE GODDAMN QUOTE!!

Dual identity. He`s both. Mild-mannered, real, humble. Like we all are, normal human beings. That is a perfect description. And then he uses his powers for good to help mankind as Superman. That how he was portrayed in Lois & Clark and post-crisis, imo. People just should bother to read instead of criticizing. :rolleyes:

HOWEVER,

That is quite different from Chris Reeve's and Maggin's definition in which they say Superman is the greatest actor ever. Its BS to me.

Did you read the quote at all? Did you not see that he clearly says that the irony of the relationship was that Lois would loathe Clark for his timidity and cowardice while at the same time she would love Superman for his power? If that is not an example of a successful act then I don't what is! It's too bad your devotion to Byrne blinds you to the intentions of his creator. And as I have reiterated to you many, many times, I DID read Post-Crisis Superman comics, I bought and read them the day they came out. If Superman had been written in a manner consistent with his portrayal for the first 50 years of his existence then I wouldn't have had an issue with them. I loved the Earth-One Batman and the Post-Crisis Year: One reboot retconned all that out, but they still kept Batman true to his core concepts, and so I was able to accept it for what it was. It was a different take and a new continuity but it was still Batman. Superman, on the other hand, was fundamentally changed and I feel it hurt the character and the sales and relevance evidence supports my view.

I think deconstruction of super hero comics and the recent push for media adaptations really aren't related at all. The super hero movie trend was started simply because they decided to adapt X-Men and Spider-Man and both proved to be insanely successful, so all the movie studios tried to get in on it. Then when things started to peter off, Iron Man and Nolan's Batman showed up and breathed new life into the genre for films.

Movies are a copycat business and superhero comics have been adapted into films, serials, cartoons and TV shows ever since the beginning. But the recent trend does seem to start with those two, although I guess you could argue it traces back to the 89 Batman.

I also disagree about comics moving from the mainstream. The exact opposite has happened. Comic books are more mainstream than they're ever been. For the longest time, comic books were thought of as simply for dumb kids. And then, after that, for dumb kids and childish nerdy adults. It's pretty recent that liking comics as a mature and well rounded adult isn't considered that weird, and that comics actually come up in serious discussions of literature.

It would seem that way but comic books themselves as a product are very marginalized. Part of this is due to the general decline of print media but even before that comics had moved out of mainstream stores and were only available in comic book stores and in the graphic novel departments of bookstores. You can't just go anywhere and buy the new issue of Superman and before the mid-80's you could. So I would say comics have a higher profile but a much less distribution. The top selling books today sell at numbers that would have ensured cancellation in the early 80's. That to me is a diminished market.

As for the idea that no responsible parent would allow their kids to read Seige or Infinite Crisis... that's a pretty big blanket statement. Wether or not a kid should read that stuff is entirely dependent on the level of maturity that kid is at. I do agree, however, that mainstream comics do make it harder to appeal to a wider audience than they used to.

Those series and many other feature graphic violence that, while being very juvenile, is not fit for children and is not fit for anything really. It's fine for exploitation movies.

As for deconstruction itself... I think it's a beautiful thing. When used responsibly. Of course, the idea of deconstructing super heroes resulted in copy and past watered down rip offs of Watchmen and DKR. But that happens in any medium when something is critically acclaimed and a big seller, you really can't fight it. Doesn't mean deconstruction is invalid. Watchmen paved the way for comics like Planetary, Kingdom Come, Astro City, and Invincible. The point of deconstructing a genre is to understand it inside and out, become comfortable with and fiddle around with it's strengths and weaknesses, so you can build it back up better than it was before. A few bad seeds shouldn't have to ruin things for everyone.

Those series you mentioned were all more of reactions to deconstruction than examples of it. I suppose it may serve a purpose of reminding people of what they are missing and not to take it for granted. But I could never look at the idea of taking a genre apart as a good thing, more like it could be a good thing if done correctly and if the result is to put it back together better.

I don't see it, really. I honestly don't think Superman being naive is as big a problem as you make it out to be. Maybe I've just been reading the better Superman stories from the past 25 years, but I very rarely have seen him portrayed as anything other than an intelligent, resourceful man who enjoys a quiet, simple personal life. As for Spider-Man... the dynamic between Clark and his parents is completely different from the dynamic between Peter and Aunt May. The only real similarity is "talking to at least one of the people who raised him." And that's not new, or unique to either character.

Well, there is always good and bad stories and I've enjoyed some Post-Crisis stories. The current era is Post-Post Crisis and is really a different time and a different hybrid Superman. Unfortunately the Superman stories of the current JMS run is as bad an example of how weak and ineffective the character can be. Or his total ineptitude during Infinite Crisis. Byrne shippers, for example, mention a few things they like but conveniently forget stuff like:

*The Big Barda porno story.
*The Kents telling Lois that Superman and Clark were raised as identical twin brothers, because Superman was non-humanoid and imitated the appearance of the first person he saw, which was supposedly Clark.
*Superman killing the PZ villains.

But the steady decline of Superman sales figures that traces back to the mid-80's, not just in numbers but in rank shows that the Byrne experiment did not work out. They need to take the bits of it that were beneficial-LexCorp (which was actually a Maggin creation but fleshed out by Byrne and Wolfman), some of the more interesting fight scenes (JB was good with those) and some stuff that came later like a good bit of the Doomsday storyline and characters like the Eradicator and Cyborg Superman. They could have done an in-continuity reboot with Dan Jurgens and it would have been awesome and not split the fanbase. That was their biggest mistake-the reboot was so in-your-face that it caused the schism. You never see bitter disputes and personal sniping like that between me and Superdaniel with Batman fans. That's because even though DC changed just as many details with Batman as they did with Superman, they kept the core.

The more we talk about it, the more I feel that, at least in terms of Superman's personality, we more or less agree, we just articulate it differently.

Pretty much.

[Binker]

And here I thought my post would end the discussion to a degree. Was I off-topic?

...umm, what was the question?..

[SuperDaniel]

Did you read the quote at all? Did you not see that he clearly says that the irony of the relationship was that Lois would loathe Clark for his timidity and cowardice while at the same time she would love Superman for his power?
Well, did YOU read the quote? He especially said that he got his characteristics from HIMSELF, being mild and timid. I don`t see a problem at all in this and nothing suggests that is all an act and that Clark SHOULD BE AN ACT. More like, this is who i am but inside i`m more than this shell created by society and relationships which was the purpose of it all.

The writers who came after him just never understood the point and like to simplify a very psychollogical character with many layers like Superman that can mean so much to a lot of people.

Still, Lois who would fall in love with Superman for his powers is basicaLLY a **** and i hate it. So even him didn`t think it right, i must say. What should attract Lois is the fact he is the best humankind can offer as being a gentle, honest and humble man. And because of this shell and the fact she doesn`t know him really, or even the fact Clark is always cautious about getting close to anyone due to his abilities, she doesn`t love him. But as she gets to know him, the line between Clark and Superman disappears. This was portrayed PERFECTLY in Lois & Clark.

I think with all your degrees in literature, people never taught you that there might be different interpretations to the same phrase, that people doesn`t share the same point of view and it doesn`t mean either is right or wrong. They are just different.

And Maggin, the only think i like about his quote is that Clark should be like Jonathan Kent. But a big NO to the total ACT thing!

Really, to me what makes Superman unique is that his story is a love story, a psychological one, a tribute to America, to Earth, to every myth and god, to science fiction, to hope ALL in the same character. All these qualities together and more i forgot to mention.

Really, pre or post-crisis, Superman will always be unique in my mind, no matter how you view Clark or not.


ps: I for one hate these stories you mentioned and forgot them really AS They should be forgotten. Im thinking that are bad stories in every era. Lets not even mention silver age and the super hypnosis power.

The era I like is the one when Byrne left the books and Jurgens and company took his place and improved over their foundation. Basically, the 90's. Tom Grummett was to me the best Superman artist EVER!

[Superman Prime]

Still, Lois who would fall in love with Superman for his powers is basicaLLY a **** and i hate it.

It's little comments like these that reinforces destructive social programming, so that many women aren't even comfortable discussing their own sexuality in any setting besides private.

[SuperDaniel]

WTF does that mean? I said a woman who cares only about what a person can do or has( be it money, good looks, powers) and not about the guys personality and who he really is is a ****, imo, and i`m not even american. I`m brazilian, a country that is known for being more open and warmer, and i still say this. What does it have to do with social programming or whatever thing you said that made no sense?

Lois who cares only about his powers is A **** and i hate it. So yeah, Siegel was wrong.

[Kurosawa]

Well, did YOU read the quote? He especially said that he got his characteristics from HIMSELF, being mild and timid. I don`t see a problem at all in this and nothing suggests that is all an act and that Clark SHOULD BE AN ACT. More like, this is who i am but inside i`m more than this shell created by society and relationships which was the purpose of it all.

That's one way to look at it. I myself am not quite as convinced as Maggin that it is an act and in fact Maggin contradicts himself about it at times, but the gist is that the Clark side of Superman is a necessary compulsion and takes on a life of his own.

The writers who came after him just never understood the point and like to simplify a very psychollogical character with many layers like Superman that can mean so much to a lot of people.

Oh, I've read the writers who came to the character after Siegel and they almost all understood exactly what he was doing. Don Cameron, Bill Finger, Edward Hamilton, Otto Binder-they all wrote the Superman/Clark duality in a very similar manner to Siegel. And Siegel himself came back in the 60's and wrote a series of insanely great stories, probably the best work of his career and maybe the best Superman stories of all time. That's why Superman sales were so high that when Mort would try to get DC to fire him, they would instead raise his pay and his status. Superman was a beast sales wise in the 50's and 60's, crushing all other series by wide margins.

Still, Lois who would fall in love with Superman for his powers is basicaLLY a **** and i hate it. So even him didn`t think it right, i must say. What should attract Lois is the fact he is the best humankind can offer as being a gentle, honest and humble man. And because of this shell and the fact she doesn`t know him really, or even the fact Clark is always cautious about getting close to anyone due to his abilities, she doesn`t love him. But as she gets to know him, the line between Clark and Superman disappears. This was portrayed PERFECTLY in Lois & Clark.

...... No, she's not....it's more she fell in lust with him over his powers and in love with him over what he did for the world. It's not like there isn't and shouldn't be a sexual attraction between them and a lot of the origins of Superman is involved in sexuality even though that isn't easily associated with him.

I think with all your degrees in literature, people never taught you that there might be different interpretations to the same phrase, that people doesn`t share the same point of view and it doesn`t mean either is right or wrong. They are just different.

I am very aware that people don't always share the same point of view, but if you are arguing a point, should you not try to prove why you think you are right? It's what you are currently doing and you are certainly entitled to do just that.

And Maggin, the only think i like about his quote is that Clark should be like Jonathan Kent. But a big NO to the total ACT thing!

You really should read some of Maggin's comics and his two Superman novels and then you can get the gist of his interpretation more than a few quotes I post ever could. And I think you would love the scenes of his interactions with the Kents, especially the scenes in Miracle Monday. Both books are dirt cheap on Amazon and they are well worth a read.

Really, to me what makes Superman unique is that his story is a love story, a psychological one, a tribute to America, to Earth, to every myth and god, to science fiction, to hope ALL in the same character. All these qualities together and more i forgot to mention.

Really, pre or post-crisis, Superman will always be unique in my mind, no matter how you view Clark or not.



Yeah, and it's the psychological aspect that makes him the most unique and fascinating character amongst superheroes. No one breaks down Batman's psyche like they do with Superman. It's just a shame that the schism amongst us Superman fans has divided us so greatly and the hybrid version they are working on now is an attempt to mend that..finally. And they need to...they cannot do anything with Superman and have it work if they are alienating half of the fans.

ps: I for one hate these stories you mentioned and forgot them really AS They should be forgotten. Im thinking that are bad stories in every era. Lets not even mention silver age and the super hypnosis power.

The era I like is the one when Byrne left the books and Jurgens and company took his place and improved over their foundation. Basically, the 90's. Tom Grummett was to me the best Superman artist EVER!

Yeah there are bad stories in every era, although I liked the general direction of the Bronze Age best-still it had some dumb stories. My favorite era was basically the Golden Age and 73-79 or so, and of course my favorite Superman artist will always be Curt Swan.

[SuperDaniel]

I guess we agree then. We just put it in different words. lol I actually read those stories at the old fortress.ws site or something. They are good.

I personally don`t like Lois to be attracted to his powers alone and that was my beef. I want her get attracted to what he represents as an ideal. Its what he does with it that makes him a hero, a Superman. Sexual tension is fine! I can`t imagine a couple without it....

[Superman Prime]

WTF does that mean? I said a woman who cares only about what a person can do or has( be it money, good looks, powers) and not about the guys personality and who he really is is a ****, imo, and i`m not even american. I`m brazilian, a country that is known for being more open and warmer, and i still say this. What does it have to do with social programming or whatever thing you said that made no sense?

Calling women ****s for being smitten with men that are powerful. Power and looks = stronger, healthier offspring.

[The Question]

DMovies are a copycat business and superhero comics have been adapted into films, serials, cartoons and TV shows ever since the beginning. But the recent trend does seem to start with those two, although I guess you could argue it traces back to the 89 Batman.

Again, I see no evidence that the two are related. The big movie trend is based entirely on the popularity of specific adaptations, most of which really didn't reflect the deconstruction of the superhero genre. Spider-Man certainly didn't.

It would seem that way but comic books themselves as a product are very marginalized. Part of this is due to the general decline of print media but even before that comics had moved out of mainstream stores and were only available in comic book stores and in the graphic novel departments of bookstores. You can't just go anywhere and buy the new issue of Superman and before the mid-80's you could. So I would say comics have a higher profile but a much less distribution. The top selling books today sell at numbers that would have ensured cancellation in the early 80's. That to me is a diminished market.

I think comic books selling primarily in comic book stores and sections of book stores has been incredibly good for the medium. Before the advent of the comic book store, it would be very difficult to find the works of people like R. Crumb or Art Speigleman, or indy or foreign publishers that had far less media coverage than those two. Now, most comic book stores have entire sections devoted to indy and foreign books, as well as mainstream titles, and make it much easier to find old issues and collections of series. You really couldn't have a massive selection of titles, or long boxes full of back issues, or a row of thick hardcovers, at a news stand or drug store. While they may not be sold everywhere, comic books are much more well known and understood, and the more obscure corners of the medium are much more accessible, than ever before.

Those series and many other feature graphic violence that, while being very juvenile, is not fit for children and is not fit for anything really. It's fine for exploitation movies.

Again, I disagree. It depends on the tastes and maturity level or the reader.

Those series you mentioned were all more of reactions to deconstruction than examples of it. I suppose it may serve a purpose of reminding people of what they are missing and not to take it for granted. But I could never look at the idea of taking a genre apart as a good thing, more like it could be a good thing if done correctly and if the result is to put it back together better.

They're not a movement against deconstruction stories like Watchmen or DKR, they're a direct result of them. You wouldn't have had stories like that, with a deeper, more nuanced and mature understanding of the genre, without someone having picked it apart with a scalpel in the 80s. Kurt Busiek specifically said that Astro City was, thematically, a sequel to Watchmen.

Taking a genre apart isn't a bad thing. It's not disrespectful of hateful, I think it's one of the most loving things a writer can do. It's born out of fondness for a genre and sincere desire for academic understanding of it. It's asking "what is this thing we're reading? How does it work? How does it not work?" All to tell new stories in that genre that are unique and better. Yes, the deconstruction of super hero comics did indirectly result in Rob Liefeld style silliness. But it also lead to a lot of really good stuff, and was usually pretty good in of itself. If a genre is to grow and evolve, the people behind it and the fans of it have to be willing for it to have it's flaws examined and it's nose to be a little bloodied. That's how we learn, and that's how fiction grows and improves over time.

Well, there is always good and bad stories and I've enjoyed some Post-Crisis stories. The current era is Post-Post Crisis and is really a different time and a different hybrid Superman. Unfortunately the Superman stories of the current JMS run is as bad an example of how weak and ineffective the character can be. Or his total ineptitude during Infinite Crisis. Byrne shippers, for example, mention a few things they like but conveniently forget stuff like:

*The Big Barda porno story.
*The Kents telling Lois that Superman and Clark were raised as identical twin brothers, because Superman was non-humanoid and imitated the appearance of the first person he saw, which was supposedly Clark.
*Superman killing the PZ villains.

But the steady decline of Superman sales figures that traces back to the mid-80's, not just in numbers but in rank shows that the Byrne experiment did not work out. They need to take the bits of it that were beneficial-LexCorp (which was actually a Maggin creation but fleshed out by Byrne and Wolfman), some of the more interesting fight scenes (JB was good with those) and some stuff that came later like a good bit of the Doomsday storyline and characters like the Eradicator and Cyborg Superman. They could have done an in-continuity reboot with Dan Jurgens and it would have been awesome and not split the fanbase. That was their biggest mistake-the reboot was so in-your-face that it caused the schism. You never see bitter disputes and personal sniping like that between me and Superdaniel with Batman fans. That's because even though DC changed just as many details with Batman as they did with Superman, they kept the core.

I'm a fan of Byrne and I never forget to mention those three things (except for the twins thing, because I honestly forgot about that). They're kind of dumb. I mean, I don't mind the concept of the thing with the PZ guys, but it was not executed well at all (no pun intended).

As for the decline in Superman sales... I can't say that's not a factor. But I honestly think a bigger problem with Superman in the 80s and 90s that hurt his sales is two things: One, he had a string of mediocre at best writers and artists, regardless of the portrayal of the character himself, and Two, the Rob Liefeld school of guns 'n' breasts storytelling was popular at the time, and something that both companies were pushing, and that's not Superman. Superman with a mullet and exaggerated muscles with grungy art and gross monsters... gonna turn a lot of people off. Especially when the story itself wasn't that good.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think a lot of factors have contributed to Superman's decline in sales over the years. While disconnect from his roots probably has alienated a lot of fans, I think it's extreme to say that it's the root of his sales troubles and that everything out have been fixed if they'd done a more subtle reboot.

[hopefuldreamer]

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

I don't dislike the old way of doing it because it's 'outdated'... I dislike it because I don't like that story.

I don't like the story of the jesus type saviour sent to earth to be mankinds hero. I don't like the idea that he pretends to be a human all day. I don't like a Lex who is not powerful businessmen, because I like him when he's characterised as being obsessed with power.

It's not that they can't. They could. I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that this time, it'll be MY kind of Superman story.

[Frankenmation]

I don't like the story of the jesus type saviour sent to earth to be mankinds hero. I don't like the idea that he pretends to be a human all day. I don't like a Lex who is not powerful businessmen, because I like him when he's characterised as being obsessed with power.


So in other words, you don't like Superman.

[SuperDaniel]

Calling women ****s for being smitten with men that are powerful. Power and looks = stronger, healthier offspring.
LOL. You made it worse. Heard about something called Love?

I'm mesmerized that you actually defend that. Its unbelievable! :doh:

Whatever, I rest my case. Women who care ONLY about that are ****s to me, no matter what you say...:o

[JAK®]

I don't like the story of the jesus type saviour sent to earth to be mankinds hero.This is Donner's interpretation, not Pre-Crisis. I don't like the idea that he pretends to be a human all day.Well, he ISN'T human. But it's less him pretending to be human and more about him overplaying the more mundane things about being human to hide the fact he is so exceptional. I don't like a Lex who is not powerful businessmen, because I like him when he's characterised as being obsessed with power. He can be obsessed with power and not be a businessman.

[JAK®]

LOL. You made it worse. Heard about something called Love?

I'm mesmerized that you actually defend that. Its unbelievable! :doh:

Whatever, I rest my case. Women who care ONLY about that are ****s to me, no matter what you say...:o
You don't understand. Love is the basis of a good relationship, but when it comes to attraction on a base level, power is a valid reason for a woman to be attracted to a man. But modern society looks down on women who express purely sexual interest, while men are free to do so.

[The Guard]

Wanting someone you think is cute or powerful doesn't make you a ****. Lois only liking Superman for his looks, body or powers would make her somewhat shallow, but not a **** in the least. That's just not what **** means at all.

And I don't even think it's that shallow to be enthralled by someone so damn unique. Especially, say, if others feared him at first.

[Kurosawa]

Again, I see no evidence that the two are related. The big movie trend is based entirely on the popularity of specific adaptations, most of which really didn't reflect the deconstruction of the superhero genre. Spider-Man certainly didn't.

No, deconstruction is something that just applies to comics themselves. Movies based on comics tend to be much more positive and the one major movie based on a deconstructionist comic, Watchmen, underperformed. So no, I don't mean that superhero movies are deconstructionist. I do feel that superhero comics partially exist because they are now treated as pitches for movies.

I think comic books selling primarily in comic book stores and sections of book stores has been incredibly good for the medium. Before the advent of the comic book store, it would be very difficult to find the works of people like R. Crumb or Art Speigleman, or indy or foreign publishers that had far less media coverage than those two. Now, most comic book stores have entire sections devoted to indy and foreign books, as well as mainstream titles, and make it much easier to find old issues and collections of series. You really couldn't have a massive selection of titles, or long boxes full of back issues, or a row of thick hardcovers, at a news stand or drug store. While they may not be sold everywhere, comic books are much more well known and understood, and the more obscure corners of the medium are much more accessible, than ever before.

It's good for indy publishers and creators, but the fact that it has completely replaced any other retailers for mainstream superhero comics has hurt exposure and sales overall. A top seller right now sells around 100k. In the early 80's, sales like that would lead to cancellation unless it was a book like Wonder Woman where the publisher had to continue the series for legal reasons.

Again, I disagree. It depends on the tastes and maturity level or the reader.

No child should be exposed to something like Siege. A teenager, maybe. An older teenager, fine. But not a kid. If someone let an 8 year old kid read Siege or Infinite Crisis then they would not need to be around children. It's too graphic for kids. It's too graphic for my tastes (for a superhero comic). I'm fine with mature themes and explicit sex or violence in the appropriate genre. I have no interest in seeing that sort of material in superhero comics. It's just not my taste.

They're not a movement against deconstruction stories like Watchmen or DKR, they're a direct result of them. You wouldn't have had stories like that, with a deeper, more nuanced and mature understanding of the genre, without someone having picked it apart with a scalpel in the 80s. Kurt Busiek specifically said that Astro City was, thematically, a sequel to Watchmen.

Alan Moore's Supreme is a clear reply to deconstructionism. The best thing about Watchmen to me is that it wasn't the real Charleton characters. I have nothing good to say about DKR.

Taking a genre apart isn't a bad thing. It's not disrespectful of hateful, I think it's one of the most loving things a writer can do. It's born out of fondness for a genre and sincere desire for academic understanding of it. It's asking "what is this thing we're reading? How does it work? How does it not work?" All to tell new stories in that genre that are unique and better. Yes, the deconstruction of super hero comics did indirectly result in Rob Liefeld style silliness. But it also lead to a lot of really good stuff, and was usually pretty good in of itself. If a genre is to grow and evolve, the people behind it and the fans of it have to be willing for it to have it's flaws examined and it's nose to be a little bloodied. That's how we learn, and that's how fiction grows and improves over time.

In some cases, maybe, but there is nothing loving towards superhero comics and Superman in particular in DKR. That series shows Miller's complete contempt for superheroes in general and Superman in particular. Not to mention his usual disgusting depictions and misogyny towards female characters. It did way more harm than good in my mind.

I'm a fan of Byrne and I never forget to mention those three things (except for the twins thing, because I honestly forgot about that). They're kind of dumb. I mean, I don't mind the concept of the thing with the PZ guys, but it was not executed well at all (no pun intended).

The PZ story was the biggest betrayal of Superman ever published. It showed me that DC were not editorially responsible enough to handle Superman. I'm very glad that story has been retconned out and I think even Byrne knew he was wrong to write it. He has at least admitted that he made a mistake in getting rid of Superboy. To be honest, the complete retconning out of the Silver/Bronze Age Superman by them was an act of cowardice to me. If Byrne was supposed to be so great, he should have took that character and made it work instead of creating his own character and calling it Superman. If he had used the already existing character and took it somewhere new, then that would have been much more impressive than what he did, which was in essence a cover version of old stories featuring a Marvel character in Superman's costume. He ducked the challenge of writing such a difficult character like Superman by creating a new character. Cowardly to say the least.

As for the decline in Superman sales... I can't say that's not a factor. But I honestly think a bigger problem with Superman in the 80s and 90s that hurt his sales is two things: One, he had a string of mediocre at best writers and artists, regardless of the portrayal of the character himself, and Two, the Rob Liefeld school of guns 'n' breasts storytelling was popular at the time, and something that both companies were pushing, and that's not Superman. Superman with a mullet and exaggerated muscles with grungy art and gross monsters... gonna turn a lot of people off. Especially when the story itself wasn't that good.

I think it was much more the loss of the Clark/Superman psyche and how Superman was made into such an establishment stooge. Both of those just kill Superman. All series around that time had runs of pretty bad stories and some god-awful art. But yeah, mullet, electric Superman, all of that hurt. But it all happened because they had already decided that the core concepts didn't matter.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think a lot of factors have contributed to Superman's decline in sales over the years. While disconnect from his roots probably has alienated a lot of fans, I think it's extreme to say that it's the root of his sales troubles and that everything out have been fixed if they'd done a more subtle reboot.

When they did such a harsh reboot they basically told the long time readers who had supported the book that they didn't need them. Now while some (like myself actually) stuck around out of habit or curiosity, I have talked to hundreds of fans both online and before that through snail mail and at conventions that basically feel that Superman ceased to exist in 1986. I'm actually nowhere near as hardcore as some people I've talked to. They have a lot less of a steady fanbase for Superman because they alienated a lot of people over the years. Some left as soon as MOS came out. A lot of people I've talked to gave MOS a chance and left when he murdered the PZ villains. For a lot of people, that was the last straw. Superman is much more dependent on transient readers now than he was before the changes when there was about a steady 125-150k readers who were in the bag. They've lost a lot more lifers than they've brought in. I've never spoken to a single Batman fan who says stuff like "Batman hasn't appeared since 1986." I'm sure there is someone, but I've never heard it.

[The Question]

No, deconstruction is something that just applies to comics themselves. Movies based on comics tend to be much more positive and the one major movie based on a deconstructionist comic, Watchmen, underperformed. So no, I don't mean that superhero movies are deconstructionist. I do feel that superhero comics partially exist because they are now treated as pitches for movies.

Some creators treat them like that, (Mark Millar a prime example) but most comic books I've been seeing lately seem to keep focused on doing their own thing.

It's good for indy publishers and creators, but the fact that it has completely replaced any other retailers for mainstream superhero comics has hurt exposure and sales overall. A top seller right now sells around 100k. In the early 80's, sales like that would lead to cancellation unless it was a book like Wonder Woman where the publisher had to continue the series for legal reasons.

But is that a clear sign that comic books are getting less exposure? Of the big four comic book publishers, they all have many more titles being published monthly than Marvel and DC did back in the 80s, and have all sorts of multi media deals. Plus, Marvel and DC are subsidiaries of two much larger and more prosperous companies, and that wealth does trickle down. Maybe it's not a sign that they're taking what little they can, and more of a sign that they're simply commercially stable enough to support books that sell less than 100 K. Also, remember, even adjusted for inflation, comics are more expensive than they were in the 80s, so they do get more money from 100 K than they did 30 years ago.

I just can't buy the idea that comics are less mainstream than they used to be. Popular culture is much more accepting of comics, both indy and, to a lesser extend, mainstream titles as legitimate literature. You hear about comic books in the media a lot more than you used to. I've even seen adds for DC books on TV. Culturally, they're more mainstream than they've ever been. There's no denying that.

No child should be exposed to something like Siege. A teenager, maybe. An older teenager, fine. But not a kid. If someone let an 8 year old kid read Siege or Infinite Crisis then they would not need to be around children. It's too graphic for kids. It's too graphic for my tastes (for a superhero comic). I'm fine with mature themes and explicit sex or violence in the appropriate genre. I have no interest in seeing that sort of material in superhero comics. It's just not my taste.

I disagree, simply on the grounds that it is a blanket statement. Things like this vary from person to person.

In some cases, maybe, but there is nothing loving towards superhero comics and Superman in particular in DKR. That series shows Miller's complete contempt for superheroes in general and Superman in particular. Not to mention his usual disgusting depictions and misogyny towards female characters. It did way more harm than good in my mind.

Frank Miller doesn't hate super heroes. He may hate Superman, but I've never seen any indication that he hates super heroes in general.

And I thing accusations of his misogyny are exaggerated and actually kind of a thoughtless use of the word. Misogyny means hatred of women. Frank Miller doesn't hate women. He's written some very well rounded, sympathetic, and self sufficient female characters in the past. He's just also in love with a certain noir aesthetic in which women play a very specific role. He's sexist, not misogynist.

And anyway, I think you missed my point about deconstructions. They're not tributes. They're not nice and tender to the subject matter. They pick it apart and examine every strength and weakness of a genre with a surgical eye. So, almost always, a deconstruction of super heroes will seem very anti-super hero. That isn't usually the case, though. By exploring the flaws of a genre, you raise an awareness of it's implications, the depths you can go with it, and how you can write it better. Deconstrucing a genre is usually born out of love for it. But it's not loving to it.

The PZ story was the biggest betrayal of Superman ever published. It showed me that DC were not editorially responsible enough to handle Superman. I'm very glad that story has been retconned out and I think even Byrne knew he was wrong to write it. He has at least admitted that he made a mistake in getting rid of Superboy. To be honest, the complete retconning out of the Silver/Bronze Age Superman by them was an act of cowardice to me. If Byrne was supposed to be so great, he should have took that character and made it work instead of creating his own character and calling it Superman. If he had used the already existing character and took it somewhere new, then that would have been much more impressive than what he did, which was in essence a cover version of old stories featuring a Marvel character in Superman's costume. He ducked the challenge of writing such a difficult character like Superman by creating a new character. Cowardly to say the least.

I think that's a little hyperbolic.

I think it was much more the loss of the Clark/Superman psyche and how Superman was made into such an establishment stooge. Both of those just kill Superman. All series around that time had runs of pretty bad stories and some god-awful art. But yeah, mullet, electric Superman, all of that hurt. But it all happened because they had already decided that the core concepts didn't matter.

Saying it was the identity thing just doesn't make sense to me. The comic consumer masses have never worked like that.

When they did such a harsh reboot they basically told the long time readers who had supported the book that they didn't need them. Now while some (like myself actually) stuck around out of habit or curiosity, I have talked to hundreds of fans both online and before that through snail mail and at conventions that basically feel that Superman ceased to exist in 1986. I'm actually nowhere near as hardcore as some people I've talked to. They have a lot less of a steady fanbase for Superman because they alienated a lot of people over the years. Some left as soon as MOS came out. A lot of people I've talked to gave MOS a chance and left when he murdered the PZ villains. For a lot of people, that was the last straw. Superman is much more dependent on transient readers now than he was before the changes when there was about a steady 125-150k readers who were in the bag. They've lost a lot more lifers than they've brought in. I've never spoken to a single Batman fan who says stuff like "Batman hasn't appeared since 1986." I'm sure there is someone, but I've never heard it.

Again, that seems a little hyperbolic.

[kal-elrebooted]

I say the could have a little bit of Man of Steel, Birthrights, and Secret Origin.

[hopefuldreamer]

So in other words, you don't like Superman.

Superman is a character that has been portrayed in so many different ways. I don't particularly like one of those ways, because it is almost the complete opposite to the hero that I do love... more than any other character, at all, ever.

And my perfect character is best describe in two quotes from Lois and Clark (my favourite characterisation of Superman on screen so far).

1. 'Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am'
2. 'All the things I can do... the powers I have... I've asked myself a thousand times, why? And the only answer I could come up with is: to help. As quickly and decisively as possible. And maybe because of that, I've been a target ... and maybe there are some things I'll never have... but when I can save a life, well... in that instant, I know two things most people never figure out: why I'm here and how I can make a difference.'

This is MY Superman:

Jor-el and Lara send Kal-el off to earth because it was the only way to keep him alive. He happens to be found by two incredibly lovely people. He grows up to be the kind of man who doesn't use his gifts for his own greed or temptations, but to help people who are in trouble. He knows that he is an alien, but has only ever known a human life, and yearns for all the things that humans yearn for. So he knows that no one can know he has 'powers'. So he creates 'Superman'. A disguise. A persona. A story he can hide behind, something that can become a huge media deal, and that people will be so awed with that they will never look at a human man in glasses and suit and consider him looking a bit like Supeman to be anything more than a joke.

Lex, similarly, has also created a persona to hide who he actually is. He has fought for power and success and money, so that he can break every law known to man and get away with it. He relishes in the satisfaction having that power gives him. He's a manipulator. He will shake the hand of a politician, and the man will believe he is a good, respectful and brilliant man... but if he knew the truth, he'd quiver with fear.

Now, I totally accept that it's just one way of doing the story, and one way of enjoying the characters, who are very multi faceted. But it is the way that I wish with all my heart they will do things in the film.

One of the most difficult things is including Jor-el and the Fortress because you add this idea that it's not his choice. And that he's not such a great hero by his own doing. And when you have him spending all his day being this 'fake' person on top of that, it makes him less likeable IMO. It makes him 10 times harder to relate too.

Well, he ISN'T human. But it's less him pretending to be human and more about him overplaying the more mundane things about being human to hide the fact he is so exceptional. He can be obsessed with power and not be a businessman.

I just much prefer it when he is, personality wise, naturally very human. The only thing that is exceptional about him other than his powers, is that he has all the best HUMAN attributes a guy can have.

That's why I prefer it when he puts on the confident stranger act when he's Superman. When he forces himself to be more commanding, and to be kind of detatched from things - which is difficult for him, because of his natural humanity. But he has to do that to make it so that no one would believe he might be walking around as one of them. That he might have been raised human as a baby.

It just makes more sense to me that way around.

[Kurosawa]

Some creators treat them like that, (Mark Millar a prime example) but most comic books I've been seeing lately seem to keep focused on doing their own thing.

It's more of the overall effect where they do stuff in comics now without thinking it through and a lack of desire amongst some but not all writers to get past the villain of the month trope.

But is that a clear sign that comic books are getting less exposure? Of the big four comic book publishers, they all have many more titles being published monthly than Marvel and DC did back in the 80s, and have all sorts of multi media deals. Plus, Marvel and DC are subsidiaries of two much larger and more prosperous companies, and that wealth does trickle down. Maybe it's not a sign that they're taking what little they can, and more of a sign that they're simply commercially stable enough to support books that sell less than 100 K. Also, remember, even adjusted for inflation, comics are more expensive than they were in the 80s, so they do get more money from 100 K than they did 30 years ago.

Production costs are also way higher now since 30 years ago most comics were printed on fairly cheap paper. Most of the money in the past came from the comics themselves, that is not even close to the case now. So I would say comics characters have way more exposure, but you cannot just go to any grocery store or convenience store and buy comics and in the early 80's you could. 4 outlets in my town, two comic shops, two bookstores, as opposed to hundreds in the Pre- comic shop era. It is what it is now, however, and what it is is a niche market. I love comics shops myself but when they went to such a limited distribution system it made it more difficult for people in some areas to get comics and common sense says there are way less outlets because it's more of niche product and market.

I just can't buy the idea that comics are less mainstream than they used to be. Popular culture is much more accepting of comics, both indy and, to a lesser extend, mainstream titles as legitimate literature. You hear about comic books in the media a lot more than you used to. I've even seen adds for DC books on TV. Culturally, they're more mainstream than they've ever been. There's no denying that.

Even with all the stuff they've done to try to make comics more adult there will always be a portion of people who dismiss them. The bad thing is too many supposed comics fans dismiss anything historical because they've been taught everything before DKR and Watchmen was stupid. That's their loss and it's a shame.

I disagree, simply on the grounds that it is a blanket statement. Things like this vary from person to person.

I would never expose a child to violence on that level and I feel it is irresponsible to do so. Besides that I think it's crappy juvenile storytelling regardless of if you think it's okay to show it to a child or not.

Frank Miller doesn't hate super heroes. He may hate Superman, but I've never seen any indication that he hates super heroes in general.

It's pretty clear in his work that doesn't care for superheroes and it's really clear that he both dislikes Superman and also doesn't know jack **** about him.

And I thing accusations of his misogyny are exaggerated and actually kind of a thoughtless use of the word. Misogyny means hatred of women. Frank Miller doesn't hate women. He's written some very well rounded, sympathetic, and self sufficient female characters in the past. He's just also in love with a certain noir aesthetic in which women play a very specific role. He's sexist, not misogynist.

His scenes with Catwoman in DKR were disgusting and exploitative. He has real issues with women and he most likely needs psychological help. He seems to treat women like whores if they are feminine and if they are strong at all then he depicts them as butch. It's very childish. His depiction of women is usually sleazy; he's sort of a much less talented Tarantino in that regard except his feminine women are usually whores and victims. The treatment of women overall in comics continues to be childish and sexist as evidenced by Barbara Gordon's continual paralysis while Batman runs around with no evidence he was even injured. Of course she's also DC's token cripple.

And anyway, I think you missed my point about deconstructions. They're not tributes. They're not nice and tender to the subject matter. They pick it apart and examine every strength and weakness of a genre with a surgical eye. So, almost always, a deconstruction of super heroes will seem very anti-super hero. That isn't usually the case, though. By exploring the flaws of a genre, you raise an awareness of it's implications, the depths you can go with it, and how you can write it better. Deconstrucing a genre is usually born out of love for it. But it's not loving to it.

I disagree for the most part. I think there are better ways to take a genre forward than taking it apart and putting it back together. In fact I feel it is often an unnecessary and self indulgent method. You can make characters more human without making them all dbags. It's a method do new things, it's not the only method and I don't think it's the best method.

I think that's a little hyperbolic.

I think it's dead on. They never addressed the issue of how difficult it is to write Superman with MOS-they ran away from it by creating a different character. If Byrne was so great he should have tried to make the real thing work. Maggin, Bates and Pasko had no problems making Superman work for years until DC took them off the books and put Marvel guys on Superman instead.

Saying it was the identity thing just doesn't make sense to me. The comic consumer masses have never worked like that.

Statistics show that in the case of Superman, they most certainly do. It is also proven with Batman's incredible string of success. Batman is true to his core, his fans know that, and therefore they stay, old and new fans alike. With Superman, half of the fanbase was told they weren't needed and what they liked didn't matter, and so a good bit of them took their money and support and went elsewhere.

Again, that seems a little hyperbolic.

I've talked to people for over 25 years about this and Alan Moore warned them at the time that this would happen. I'm not making this up-there is a sizable part of the Superman fanbase that basically considers anything past 86 to be invalid. I know them and I've corresponded with them for years. I'm nowhere near as hardcore as them. Those fans would not give this website or this movie the time of day. Superman is a dead issue to them because the only medium in which he even exists to most of those guys is in reprints. To them it is like we are talking about a different character completely. It's just like Star Wars OT shippers who feel everything from the 1997 SE on is garbage and disregard the prequels. It's a minority but it's hurt Superman way more than SW which is so insanely huge that it can't be hurt. SW doesn't have competition like Superman does where the same publisher has another iconic hero that is done right and with respect to his original creators vision. Batman fans are so lucky that DC has handled him correctly over the years more often than not.

[TruerToTheCore]

But is that a clear sign that comic books are getting less exposure? Of the big four comic book publishers, they all have many more titles being published monthly than Marvel and DC did back in the 80s, and have all sorts of multi media deals. Plus, Marvel and DC are subsidiaries of two much larger and more prosperous companies, and that wealth does trickle down. Maybe it's not a sign that they're taking what little they can, and more of a sign that they're simply commercially stable enough to support books that sell less than 100 K. Also, remember, even adjusted for inflation, comics are more expensive than they were in the 80s, so they do get more money from 100 K than they did 30 years ago.


To compare the situation of today to the situation thirty years ago just doesn't work. These days comic book are sold directly to comic book shops while back in the day they were given to newsstands who could return the unsold issues. So the comic industry produces the issues that are ordered which means a very very low possibilty of making any loss out of the deals. Which is the ONLY reason why comics survived past the mid-90s, but it's also the reason why sales are so low these days. The average person will not find them, impulse buys are gone. Comic books of today are fanzines.

There is also a little concept called "opportunity costs". The manpower and resources used to make comics could be used for something more profitable.

[Daybreak_st]

Superman is a character that has been portrayed in so many different ways. I don't particularly like one of those ways, because it is almost the complete opposite to the hero that I do love... more than any other character, at all, ever.

And my perfect character is best describe in two quotes from Lois and Clark (my favourite characterisation of Superman on screen so far).

1. 'Superman is what I can do, Clark is who I am'
2. 'All the things I can do... the powers I have... I've asked myself a thousand times, why? And the only answer I could come up with is: to help. As quickly and decisively as possible. And maybe because of that, I've been a target ... and maybe there are some things I'll never have... but when I can save a life, well... in that instant, I know two things most people never figure out: why I'm here and how I can make a difference.'

This is MY Superman:

Jor-el and Lara send Kal-el off to earth because it was the only way to keep him alive. He happens to be found by two incredibly lovely people. He grows up to be the kind of man who doesn't use his gifts for his own greed or temptations, but to help people who are in trouble. He knows that he is an alien, but has only ever known a human life, and yearns for all the things that humans yearn for. So he knows that no one can know he has 'powers'. So he creates 'Superman'. A disguise. A persona. A story he can hide behind, something that can become a huge media deal, and that people will be so awed with that they will never look at a human man in glasses and suit and consider him looking a bit like Supeman to be anything more than a joke.

Lex, similarly, has also created a persona to hide who he actually is. He has fought for power and success and money, so that he can break every law known to man and get away with it. He relishes in the satisfaction having that power gives him. He's a manipulator. He will shake the hand of a politician, and the man will believe he is a good, respectful and brilliant man... but if he knew the truth, he'd quiver with fear.

Now, I totally accept that it's just one way of doing the story, and one way of enjoying the characters, who are very multi faceted. But it is the way that I wish with all my heart they will do things in the film.

One of the most difficult things is including Jor-el and the Fortress because you add this idea that it's not his choice. And that he's not such a great hero by his own doing. And when you have him spending all his day being this 'fake' person on top of that, it makes him less likeable IMO. It makes him 10 times harder to relate too.



I just much prefer it when he is, personality wise, naturally very human. The only thing that is exceptional about him other than his powers, is that he has all the best HUMAN attributes a guy can have.

That's why I prefer it when he puts on the confident stranger act when he's Superman. When he forces himself to be more commanding, and to be kind of detatched from things - which is difficult for him, because of his natural humanity. But he has to do that to make it so that no one would believe he might be walking around as one of them. That he might have been raised human as a baby.

It just makes more sense to me that way around.


I think you make some excellent points, and the quote in bold has got be one of the best statements by Superman i've ever read. That should be included in the film.

I disagree on one thing however, you mention the inclusion of Jor-el and the Fortress makes it as if becoming Superman isn't a choice. That only happens when they force the idea of "destiny" down our throats as in Smallville and the idea was also emphasized in the films. As if Jor-el planne on sending Kal-el to earth the whole time and has his whole life figured out. The entire idea is really silly. He was simply trying to save his son's life. That's it. If he was so smart to include in one crystal that could form the fortress and possess all the powers as seen in smallville, then he should've been able to save all of krypton, the whole thing is just too exaggerated. If handled that way then it fails, doesn't allow the character to grow organically and forces the idea of "destiny".

The Fortess should simply be a library. Not telling clark what to do but a resources that let's him learn about his kryptonian heritage and allows him to come to terms with his dual hertitage. That doesn't take anything away from the character but adds so many more layers to him. You could do some extremely interesting things with his time in the fortress, kind of like his own private retreat, that allows him to be "kal-el" the son, the scientist, the alien, time when he doesnt' have to be the public eye as mild mannered clark kent or the iconic Superman, but just explore this side of himself that always made him a little lost and lonely before. If handled well it could really enrich his character and again set him apart from any other hero depicted on film.

Additionally i don't want him dressed in the Superman suit in the fortress. Either wear regular clothes (it would visibly be and interesting contrast to and advanced scifi environment, NO CRYSTALS this time please), or let him replicate some other kryptonain clothing.

[Kurosawa]

To compare the situation of today to the situation thirty years ago just doesn't work. These days comic book are sold directly to comic book shops while back in the day they were given to newsstands who could return the unsold issues. So the comic industry produces the issues that are ordered which means a very very low possibilty of making any loss out of the deals. Which is the ONLY reason why comics survived past the mid-90s, but it's also the reason why sales are so low these days. The average person will not find them, impulse buys are gone. Comic books of today are fanzines.

There is also a little concept called "opportunity costs". The manpower and resources used to make comics could be used for something more profitable.

Agree completely. My first comic buys were at the supermarket while my mother shopped. I'd go to the magazine aisle and read comics and she'd buy me a few. I had seen Batman reruns on TV and Spider-Man cartoons but I watched a lot of action shows and cartoons as a kid, stuff like Tarzan and Ultraman, etc. So whatever TV exposure I had gotten, I only started buying comics because I was able to find them easily. At 4 years old you don't know such a thing as a comic shop exists (in fact at the time there was not one in my hometown).

I think you make some excellent points, and the quote in bold has got be one of the best statements by Superman i've ever read. That should be included in the film.

I disagree on one thing however, you mention the inclusion of Jor-el and the Fortress makes it as if becoming Superman isn't a choice. That only happens when they force the idea of "destiny" down our throats as in Smallville and the idea was also emphasized in the films. As if Jor-el planne on sending Kal-el to earth the whole time and has his whole life figured out. The entire idea is really silly. He was simply trying to save his son's life. That's it. If he was so smart to include in one crystal that could form the fortress and possess all the powers as seen in smallville, then he should've been able to save all of krypton, the whole thing is just too exaggerated. If handled that way then it fails, doesn't allow the character to grow organically and forces the idea of "destiny".

The Fortess should simply be a library. Not telling clark what to do but a resources that let's him learn about his kryptonian heritage and allows him to come to terms with his dual hertitage. That doesn't take anything away from the character but adds so many more layers to him. You could do some extremely interesting things with his time in the fortress, kind of like his own private retreat, that allows him to be "kal-el" the son, the scientist, the alien, time when he doesnt' have to be the public eye as mild mannered clark kent or the iconic Superman, but just explore this side of himself that always made him a little lost and lonely before. If handled well it could really enrich his character and again set him apart from any other hero depicted on film.

Additionally i don't want him dressed in the Superman suit in the fortress. Either wear regular clothes (it would visibly be and interesting contrast to and advanced scifi environment, NO CRYSTALS this time please), or let him replicate some other kryptonain clothing.

Yeah, I have no interest in Superman being destined...maybe he is but he himself nor Jor-El should never be aware of it. The Guardians of the Universe knew a great champion of justice would come from Krypton one day and they knew he would be the one but even they couldn't forsee him becoming Superman...they thought he would be a Green Lantern. He is his own man and it was Ma and Pa Kent that helped him make his decisions and the direction for his life's work. Obviously he knew from a very young age that he was going to make a difference in the world but the whole destiny mumbo jumbo is a little overdone. As for your Fortress ideas, I like them quite a bit. A love the idea of the FOS as the most awesome clubhouse/hideout ever, and I'd like to see some of the scenes where Superman relaxes there, works on experiments, etc. And yes, I don't like the crystal structure either. Maybe a few sunstone crystals but I like the idea that Superman built it himself...Jor-El doesn't need to do everything for him, he's a big boy. I'd love to see the giant statues of Jor-El and Lara holding Krypton and the giant key, but they've never even done a Batcave with the dinosaur and giant penny for some reason, so not getting my hopes up.

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah, I have no interest in Superman being destined...maybe he is but he himself nor Jor-El should never be aware of it. The Guardians of the Universe knew a great champion of justice would come from Krypton one day and they knew he would be the one but even they couldn't forsee him becoming Superman...they thought he would be a Green Lantern. He is his own man and it was Ma and Pa Kent that helped him make his decisions and the direction for his life's work. Obviously he knew from a very young age that he was going to make a difference in the world but the whole destiny mumbo jumbo is a little overdone. As for your Fortress ideas, I like them quite a bit. A love the idea of the FOS as the most awesome clubhouse/hideout ever, and I'd like to see some of the scenes where Superman relaxes there, works on experiments, etc. And yes, I don't like the crystal structure either. Maybe a few sunstone crystals but I like the idea that Superman built it himself...Jor-El doesn't need to do everything for him, he's a big boy. I'd love to see the giant statues of Jor-El and Lara holding Krypton and the giant key, but they've never even done a Batcave with the dinosaur and giant penny for some reason, so not getting my hopes up.

Yes agreed. I love the idea of him working on experiments in the fortress. Absolutely loved it's portrayal in All-Star. Again this is something that adds an additional scifi layer to the character that we haven't seen in live action and would serve to separate him from other supberheroes. The giant statues would also be a treat to see in live action. I really don't understand how people can possibly think a character as interesting and diverse as Superman is boring. He has so much potential. And i'd love to see some of the kryptonian look from the recent New Krypton storyline incorporated into any view we get of krypton and the fortress. It should look complex, yet elegant, and alien. A few crystals in a functioning capacity is fine but i hate the crystal fortress it's just this huge waist of space. He uses one room with a console, that's it, but it's this huge structure, what for? It wasn't well thought out and i think it's served it's purpose and it's time to move on with visualizing Kryptonian tech.

If they make it cool and intriguing people won't be able to resist going to see it on the buzz alone. I really hope they bring him back to the top spot he deserves. No other character has the same potential. The only one i can think that would come close in terms of story ideas, superhero mix with scifi is Green lantern, but that's about it.

[Nave 'Torment']

I just want to say that yes it should be based on the Man of Steel by John Byrne, or at least have the same feel as that entire run. The Modern Age Superman is by far one of the best characterisations of him I've seen in the comics. It's the most relatable, most discernible and downright most fun. I despise the Neo-Silver Age books that are out today; they claim to be authentic and "best of all ages" but in reality is so alien and out of touch with humanity that he feels like a Super-God than the Man of Tomorrow.

I loved what Bruce Timm did in the animated series, and what the people on Smallville have done with Clark Kent - that's something that should be kept in mind during this reboot.

Also, I'm fairly certain that the story will be more akin to the Modern age - with it's updates on the characters seen in John Byrne's version, not Mark Waid's (which is still more Smallville-esque). If it's anything like BATMAN BEGINS (which was, in fact, inspired partly by Dick Donner's original) then we can expect a lot of Krypton, and a hell lot of Metropolis.