Should the Superman Reboot Be Based On Superman: Birthright

[mcallima]

Originally Posted by Daybreak_st

Why?

I explained why. In my view, Superman works best when you really focus on the contrast between alien god and humanity. That involves more than super powers and heroic feats, it involves a contrast in mindsets. Loeb got that. With that godlike ability, it's important to see a clear reason WHY Clark is the boy scout. If he had a modem human worldview, he would either be a Batman/Punisher type character that can fly or he would be closer to his Red Son iteration. Neither is a Superman that I wish to see on screen.

We need a strong contrast between Superman and humanity, to make the ways he inspires us more thematically impacting. Furthermore, we need a strong contrast between the hero and the arch nemesis. Nobody screams modern human more than Lex Luthor, and his hubris is best shown against Superman's purity.

Just my opinion anyhow. I found Birthright boring and shallow in comparison to For All Seasons.

[Daybreak_st]

Originally Posted by mcallima

I explained why. In my view, Superman works best when you really focus on the contrast between alien god and humanity. That involves more than super powers and heroic feats, it involves a contrast in mindsets. Loeb got that. With that godlike ability, it's important to see a clear reason WHY Clark is the boy scout. If he had a modem human worldview, he would either be a Batman/Punisher type character that can fly or he would be closer to his Red Son iteration. Neither is a Superman that I wish to see on screen.

We need a strong contrast between Superman and humanity, to make the ways he inspires us more thematically impacting. Furthermore, we need a strong contrast between the hero and the arch nemesis. Nobody screams modern human more than Lex Luthor, and his hubris is best shown against Superman's purity.

Just my opinion anyhow. I found Birthright boring and shallow in comparison to For All Seasons.

I see what you are going for in your approach. My "why" was actually to the more specific question of "why would he be naive? from a logical standpoint?" What would make him that way? I think you're goal can be achieved without him coming across as "naive" or a simpleton. He's an interesting/complex character, there isn't anything simple aobut him. Having a strong moral code and growing up in the mid-west doesn't equate with being a simpleton or naive person.

I know plenty of people from small communities and and if anything they are more "down to earth" and easily relatable. But imagine someone with that background then traveling the world seeing things that no other human has seen. What kind of mindset would they develop? It certainly wouldn't be a "naive" or simple one. I'd think they would see the world as one big community and appreciate life that much more. Personally i think All-Star Superman handled it best. Sure he's from the country, and likes it there, he even plans on staying until his father died. You get to see the difference bw his early years, then how his time as Superman, the things he's seen, he's various adventures, matured him into the ultimate hero. He's certainly not "naive".

I know it's just your opinion and you have every right to it. I hope i'm not coming across in a negative way, if so i apologize. I just think if the filmakers want to create a Superman franchise that will be successful, then the last thing they need is for him to feel irrelevent. It's like how many people had no interest in Batman Begins, b/c they weren't crazy about the old films. To them (i know one of my friends felt this way) Batman was pretty boring, just this guy in costume with gadgets. Then they saw the film and were blown away. They really liked how it gave Bruce Wayne actual layers as a full formed character, etc.

That's the treatment superman needs. People need to see that he can be just as interesting as any other character, but more so, that he has a personality, is fun, etc. It's the mind set that "superman is boring" stops many people from giving him a chance. The character is as interesting/relevent as he's written to be. If they craft a fully formed 3d character in clark kent and Superman then i'm sure audiences will enjoy and maybe leave with a new perspective on the character. LIke "superman's not dull or naive, he's pretty interesting" Personally i thought Birthright, specifically the first few issues handeld this really well, clark seemed like an actual person, not a cliche or "symbol" but a person, same treatment with Superman. That's the sort of thing a modern audience will respond to. If you make him boring or naive in the film, then the negative view of the character is simply getting reinforced and his relevance diminishes even more. Make him interesting and the public's persecption will change.

[Webhead2006]

good points day.

[Kurosawa]

Anything other than MOS and I'll be happy.

[TheWrathOfGod]

The Man of Steel, The Reign of the Superman, and Action Comics #1 should be the source material.

[Daybreak_st]

Here's what Mark Waid himself has to say about the "aura" issue:

"The notion began for me when I was a kid, when I read Elliot Maggin's amazing 'Superman' novels ('Last Son of Krypton' and 'Miracle Monday'), the latter of which makes a point of how Superman's alien eyes, which can see microwaves and UV radiation, perceive an unearthly, indescribable color around all living things--a halo of sorts. Elliot used that idea to great effect in 'Miracle Monday' to help explain Superman's utter reverence for life, and with Elliot's permission and encouragement, I brought it into play in 'Birthright.' To Superman, there is nothing more beautiful than the glow around living creatures--and nothing more awful and repellent than the wilted, black absence of that glow around creatures that once were vibrant. That said--well, it makes sense to me that Superman wouldn't deliberately kill animals to eat them. He'd certainly never impose that belief on others--it's his choice, it's one made from a very unique circumstance, and no one understands the virtue of tolerance more than an extraterrestrial living as one of us--but it speaks to how he and he alone sees the world."

He talks more about Birthright here:

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=3256


Great article for anyone interested.

[Daybreak_st]

cool snippets from the interview:

"Imagine Superman comics were beginning today and you could get in from the very beginning, reading the first adventures of a Man of Steel reinvented from top to bottom to reflect today's world and today's sensibilities," says Waid of the basics of the high-profile "Superman: Birthright" maxi series. "To be relevant to your experience and your life. To really face up to and address the questions of how hard it is to be a 'hero' in the 21st century--and why anyone would make the sacrifices it entails. That's ''Birthright''. It's a twelve-issue series from DC Comics by myself, artists Leinil Yu and Gerry Alanguilan and colorist Dave McCaig, and it's The Story of Superman--from Krypton to Smallville to Metropolis and beyond."

All the familiar players are here, albeit filtered through a modern lens--the Kents, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Perry White and, of course, Lex Luthor--the character who's probably the most radically updated to reflect his boyhood ties to young Clark Kent."

Waid himself admits that "Superman: Birthright" is the new official origin of Superman and a "calculated" reboot. "If by 'calculated' we mean 'thought out in great detail to the Nth degree by creators who love the character,' then yes. Accept no substitutes-'Birthright' is officially the DC Comics Origin of Superman. I wish we could have simply said that up front nine months ago when the series began, but overall plans for Superman in 2003 were still somewhat in flux, so DC decided to be a little more circumspect about it and instead surprise fans with the building falllout to 'Birthright' as it pops up in the regular ongoing Superman monthlies. Readers seem very surprised, in a very good way. 'Birthright' is very much the foundation of everything DC's planning for Superman in the future. It was our job to pave the way, it is essential Superman reading, and it's an honor to present it."

"As to why 'I' felt a reboot was needed, what 'I' felt wasn't important as what Dan Didio at DC felt--because he came to me, rather than vice-versa. His challenge to us was to completely re-imagine Superman for the 21st century--something that we all feel will benefit fans and readers now and tomorrow."

My favorite part is in bold:

"I prefer to sit down with DC editorial and with the 'Birthright' crew, talk over our mutual plans at great length, take and distill the primal elements that make Superman who he is, and concentrate on presenting those with fresh energy. We actually have made reaches to nod to previous continuity when possible, but we're not being bound by it. We're looking forward, not back."

^^^ This is why i love Birthright! It acknowledged continuity but wasn't bound by it, the exact opposite of Secret Origin. It was a fresh take on the character....again the exact opposite of Secret Origin.

He's quite possibly the biggest Superman fan on the planet and considering DC Comics has dubbed 2004 "The Year Of Superman," Mark Waid is excited about a lot, especially completing his vision of Superman. "About 'Birthright?' That's easy. It's being able to channel my love into the project and show you why every thread in the tapestry of Superman works when you just approach it with thought and feeling. Why it makes sense that he wears a bright costume. Why it makes sense that he disguises himself as a man in glasses. Why the glasses work. Writing all that and more is what makes it thrilling to me."

[Webhead2006]

nice tidbits about it.

[LeXcalibur]

even if there are denials i think it has roots to birthright. i mean the s being a symbol of hope is straight from it!