The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2010, 12:02 PM   #101
DavidTyler
Side-Kick
 
DavidTyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,348
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man of Tomorrow View Post
Since there's already a script in place, there's no way Nolan would want CK played as the 'real person,' given how it makes the duality of the disguise completely unbelievable in live action.

There'd be no versimilitude, no realistic logic behind it.


There has to be a huge dichotomy between Reporter Clark and Supes, or it would be completely silly like Cain in L+C.


And this requires the Reporter Clark persona to be invented and exaggerated for effect.
OK... using your logic ... why wouldn't Nolan arrive at Clark being the 'real person' and Superman being the invented personality? Doesn't that make more sense? He's been Clark his whole life. Superman happened to him once he was an adult.

Also - consider this: Clark is around people having one-on-one conversations most of his day. When he's Superman he is basically flying around rescuing people, averting disasters, and battling enemies. He's not exactly going to be haning out carrying on casual conversations or giving interviews on any kind of a regular basis. Which would it be easier for him to do? Create a false personality and have to keep it up 24/7 or just remain aloof the few times he is talking to people in his other identity?

DavidTyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 12:35 PM   #102
ChickenScratch
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Queens, NY, USA
Posts: 5,208
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Good argument. I would also add that in times of stress people provide the worse accounts of what happened. It's totally ok if Superman does not wear a mask, the spead he's usually going at, the little contact (usually seconds) he has with people he rescues, they'll never be able to give a good description.

ChickenScratch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 12:35 PM   #103
Daybreak_st
Old-School Comic Cool
 
Daybreak_st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,623
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTyler View Post
OK... using your logic ... why wouldn't Nolan arrive at Clark being the 'real person' and Superman being the invented personality? Doesn't that make more sense? He's been Clark his whole life. Superman happened to him once he was an adult.

Also - consider this: Clark is around people having one-on-one conversations most of his day. When he's Superman he is basically flying around rescuing people, averting disasters, and battling enemies. He's not exactly going to be haning out carrying on casual conversations or giving interviews on any kind of a regular basis. Which would it be easier for him to do? Create a false personality and have to keep it up 24/7 or just remain aloof the few times he is talking to people in his other identity?

I totally agree with you David.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man of Tomorrow
Since there's already a script in place, there's no way Nolan would want CK played as the 'real person,' given how it makes the duality of the disguise completely unbelievable in live action.
As far as people discussing realism. There is simply very little realism in no one being able to recognize him as he doesn't wear a mask. People would see him and know that clark kent is superman, it wouldn't matter how he acts. That would be realistic.

Pushing that aside, we all accept that people don't see the connection. That being the case simply craft the best clark kent that an audience can actually connect to. This is a film after all and any good film needs well thought out 3diminsional characters that audiences can invest in.

Daybreak_st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 01:03 PM   #104
\S/JcDc\S/
Panned User
 
\S/JcDc\S/'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,509
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

I really want them to have an aura from the suit which makes him unrecognizable as a common man.

You wouldn't need a marvelized scientific reason imo.

This is my solution, and I believe in it.

You could simply has Jor-el explain it in the FOS when he receives the suit/or even just emblem... The example I give is thinking of his Kryptonian side as almost a Vulcan like interpretation E.G. :

"My son, do not suffer the same fate as we did on Krypton. Earth will need your protection. There will be no equal to your abilities on Earth, but I must warn you, other beings will learn of your existence, and try to find the means to destroy you. You can learn from the humans, and you can live as a human, but when the world needs you...The Kryptonian within will need to take precedent. For this reason I present you this, <the \S/ symbol is released from FOS and presented to Kal-el> the house of El's family crest. When you wear it, you'll only be seen as the Kryptonian who is far beyond mortal measures. Trust in both your human and Kryptonian instincts as they can serve you well, but keep your emotions in balance... As your powers grow beyond what mortal men can imagine."

I think the reason he wears glasses should actually come from his Earth parents. They notice his abilities, so they want to keep him as normal looking as possible. So he starts wearing the glasses, and it is just part of who Clark is.

__________________
JcDc-- My original join date was: 05-07-2003 --Time flies, and so should Superman!
\S/JcDc\S/ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 01:27 PM   #105
DavidTyler
Side-Kick
 
DavidTyler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,348
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

I can go with the Waid idea that Clarks eyes are a very intense - almost unnatural blue and that the glasses help mask that. I can accept it because I had the same idea years ago. I can also accept that he's hiding his abs and slouching a little but the part I can't live with is Clark putting on a major act while in the glasses. Clark, as far as I'm concerned, isn't all that self-confident to begin with. Sure, he can do amazing things but everything around him is like cardboard. He always has to watch how he physically handles things. BUT ... on a much more important note... he doesn't have the super ability to know just how to talk to people or handle emotional situations. He's just as vulnerable as the rest of us. Taking down a bad guy is easy. It's all the other stuff that would make him less than confident.

DavidTyler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 01:58 PM   #106
Webhead2006
The Web-Swinger
 
Webhead2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 39,735
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindreaper21 View Post
See I like this to a certain degree. It has pretty much everything I mentioned. This is Clark being himself, and learning how to get by without being recognized. He should maintain this personality while he works and interacts with people, because he's just changing his appearance, not putting on a show. For example, if Clark puts on a fake personality and someone from Smallvile shows up, Clark would look obvious and the idea is to not be obvious to anyone. Notice how he stays away from red and blue and hides his physique well. I think that his slouched posture should be natural though and the glasses should be part of his disguise earlier in life. For the movie I still want the sci-fi element to be embraced, such as special lenses that make his eyes appear brown, because I want to still be able to notice his alien nature. When he goes out as Superman he should be more like a soldier, showing what his training has done for him. I want to be able to see his struggle and determination to save people rather than everything just looking simple.
This sounds good. As for the kents i said before i would prefer to see them both alive while he is adult and is superman. So he has his family connection and we could see things from thier point of view and have them help him out from time to time with issues. Then in later movies they could meet lois, and then down the road if you want play up the death deal.

__________________
Warner Bros Restructure's Dc comics into DC entertainment. Hopefully more characters and long in developmental hell projects can make it into the big and small screens soon.

Marvel and the House of Mouse?
www.ItsJustMovies.com
Webhead2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 03:09 PM   #107
Daybreak_st
Old-School Comic Cool
 
Daybreak_st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,623
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTyler View Post
I can go with the Waid idea that Clarks eyes are a very intense - almost unnatural blue and that the glasses help mask that. I can accept it because I had the same idea years ago. I can also accept that he's hiding his abs and slouching a little but the part I can't live with is Clark putting on a major act while in the glasses. Clark, as far as I'm concerned, isn't all that self-confident to begin with. Sure, he can do amazing things but everything around him is like cardboard. He always has to watch how he physically handles things. BUT ... on a much more important note... he doesn't have the super ability to know just how to talk to people or handle emotional situations. He's just as vulnerable as the rest of us. Taking down a bad guy is easy. It's all the other stuff that would make him less than confident.

Yeah that's a very valid point, it makes sense that's he's akward as clark. The JJ Abrams script for all it got wrong, he did have an interesting approach to clark. Clark was reserved an socially awkward like you mentioned, finally becoming superman was like his outlet so to speak at it helped him embrace his heroic side, and allowed him to gain some confidence.

Daybreak_st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 11:24 PM   #108
true316
Side-Kick
 
true316's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 648
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTyler View Post
I really think there's a major point being missed here.......

Superman doesn't hang out for interviews. He does his thing and then moves on. There isn't much of a reason for him to put on a huge act as Clark. In fact, there's a much better reason for him to put on an act when dealing with the public in his 'Superman' personna.

Clark needs to be an average guy who happens to be a little reserved and quiet but is very warm and approachable. Superman needs to be a bit aloof. It's only us - the viewers - who will be spending a lot of time with him as he does his 'daring-do'. As Lois get's to know him he'll still need to be a bit aloof with her. That may very well be part of why she's attracted to him. Being that she's a bit of a strong woman, she may not be used to strong men who don't cave to her.
I disagree. Think about what aloof means. "Uninvolved or unwilling to become involved with other people..." That's the LAST way I would describe Superman. To me the essence of the character is his willingness to become involved.

That's great that you think Clark should be warm and approachable. But think about the people that Superman would be dealing with on a DAILY basis. If it was a situation in which Superman had to intercede it would most likely have been a traumatizing, life-threatening danger. Don't you think they could use someone "warm and approachable" also?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTyler View Post
OK... using your logic ... why wouldn't Nolan arrive at Clark being the 'real person' and Superman being the invented personality? Doesn't that make more sense? He's been Clark his whole life. Superman happened to him once he was an adult.

Also - consider this: Clark is around people having one-on-one conversations most of his day. When he's Superman he is basically flying around rescuing people, averting disasters, and battling enemies. He's not exactly going to be haning out carrying on casual conversations or giving interviews on any kind of a regular basis. Which would it be easier for him to do? Create a false personality and have to keep it up 24/7 or just remain aloof the few times he is talking to people in his other identity?
I get that this is the Bryne way of looking at things. But I wholeheartedly disagree with this. "Superman happened to him?" To me Superman is the result of his life experiences. Superman is the man that the little boy from Smallville grew up to be.

I really dislike that Superman is sometimes presented as FAKE. Superman should never be reduced to an image or carefully crafted public persona that Clark Kent employs simply to maintain his private life. Superman is the one hero for whom there should be no pretense.

I would also say that I wouldn't write Clark Kent as a false personality but an extension of his actual personality. Clark would be quieter and more low-key, but he would still exhibit most of the same virtues that Superman does.

In my opinion, if you were to break down his day, he would spend more time as Superman than as Clark. Simply because there would be a greater, more immediate need for Superman.

__________________
"You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it." -Atticus Finch
true316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 11:52 PM   #109
Webhead2006
The Web-Swinger
 
Webhead2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 39,735
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

i cant wait to see how they will play with the whole clark kent/superman dynamic this time around. Cause as we have shown here there is a multiple ways we could approach this.

__________________
Warner Bros Restructure's Dc comics into DC entertainment. Hopefully more characters and long in developmental hell projects can make it into the big and small screens soon.

Marvel and the House of Mouse?
www.ItsJustMovies.com
Webhead2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 11:53 PM   #110
Webhead2006
The Web-Swinger
 
Webhead2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 39,735
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

double post

__________________
Warner Bros Restructure's Dc comics into DC entertainment. Hopefully more characters and long in developmental hell projects can make it into the big and small screens soon.

Marvel and the House of Mouse?
www.ItsJustMovies.com

Last edited by Webhead2006; 02-17-2010 at 12:01 AM.
Webhead2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 11:59 PM   #111
Webhead2006
The Web-Swinger
 
Webhead2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 39,735
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

triple post

__________________
Warner Bros Restructure's Dc comics into DC entertainment. Hopefully more characters and long in developmental hell projects can make it into the big and small screens soon.

Marvel and the House of Mouse?
www.ItsJustMovies.com
Webhead2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 01:29 AM   #112
Kurosawa
Banned User
 
Kurosawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 22,300 miles above the Earth
Posts: 9,485
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidTyler View Post
OK... using your logic ... why wouldn't Nolan arrive at Clark being the 'real person' and Superman being the invented personality? Doesn't that make more sense? He's been Clark his whole life. Superman happened to him once he was an adult.

Also - consider this: Clark is around people having one-on-one conversations most of his day. When he's Superman he is basically flying around rescuing people, averting disasters, and battling enemies. He's not exactly going to be haning out carrying on casual conversations or giving interviews on any kind of a regular basis. Which would it be easier for him to do? Create a false personality and have to keep it up 24/7 or just remain aloof the few times he is talking to people in his other identity?
Nolan hopefully wouldn't have Clark as the "real person" because Jerry Siegel, who created Superman, did not have Clark as the real personality.

Peter Parker is the real person, Hal Jordan is the real person, so is Matt Murdock, Ray Palmer, and 99.9% of other characters. What makes Superman unique is that he is the real person, and the civilian identity the disguise. Besides, being Superman started for him the second the rocket was launched.

When they got away from the basics with Superman, the character lost popularity and relevance. Batman flourishes because the character has kept true to it's roots. Since Superman's core concepts and principles were jettisoned in the mid 80's, the character has become a distant second to Batman and has become a joke. They need to go back to the basics and take Superman back to the what made people connect and care about him in the first place. The Byrne experiment is a proven failure.

Kurosawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 06:13 AM   #113
Daybreak_st
Old-School Comic Cool
 
Daybreak_st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,623
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
The Byrne experiment is a proven failure.



It's not a proven failure. Realize this: times change. People who started out reading superman were in the midst of the Great Depression. They had very little to look forward to except for things like comic books. The character was there hero b/c he fought the injustices they experienced. He wasn't exactly a complex character, i just re-read my reprint of action comics #1 and he reads like the average tough guy hero of the pulp serials. Like a John Wayne with super powers and tights. His powers were probably on par with Spiderman since he punched his human opponents and jumped everywhere he just so happened to also be bullet proof.

Times changed. As the silver age progressed the character was expanded with near limitless abilities. He faced increasingly out of this world situations and most people couldn't identify with him.

Marvel comics introduced characters that were people first, heroes second and the public jumped on it. Finally there were characters they could relate to vs the over-the-top anitcs of someone like superman. Bryne was brought in to take superman back to the basics as they say in spidey the movie "take it back to formula". It included making clark a more viable part of the formula, one that you can actually relate to. He succeeded to a degree.

Both Lois and Clark and Smallville have used that paradigm of Clark being the real person. L&C lasted for 4 seasons and Smallville has lasted for 9. Like it or not that is quite impressive for a television series about a comic book character. He's obviously still immensely popular or success like that of a long running show like Smallville wouldn't be there. Also the animated series focused on the same basic Byrne elements. If anything it made superman relevant for a new generation and as such he remains in the public conscious today. That's hardly a sign of failure.

If you don't like it fine, admit it but please stop accusing this take on the character for his demise or some other nonsense.

Today people have some many other resources available to them, tv, internet, movies, video games, so no comic books aren't nearly as popular as they once were. You have generations who have been able to experience the character of superman without ever picking up a comic. And much of their experience has included the Clark as the real person while Superman is his creation.

At this point in time, the movie going audience wants more from their heroes, not necessarily dark motivations or whatever, but more well developed, characters, bruce from the batman movies is a good example as is Tony Stark. You keep saying how they need to go back to the clark is the mask version, but tell me how would you translate that into a movie? How would you develop the character in a way that the audience can actually invest their emotions into? You want to kill his parents also, right? How do we as an audience get an inside look at the character with his parents out of the way and no one else to serve as his "sounding board"? Please start thinking about these very real issues from a filmmaking standpoint instead of as a disgruntled fan.


Last edited by Daybreak_st; 02-17-2010 at 09:11 AM.
Daybreak_st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 11:50 AM   #114
Webhead2006
The Web-Swinger
 
Webhead2006's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 39,735
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

that is true times change and people/stories, and ideas have changed from what they were when they were created to today.

__________________
Warner Bros Restructure's Dc comics into DC entertainment. Hopefully more characters and long in developmental hell projects can make it into the big and small screens soon.

Marvel and the House of Mouse?
www.ItsJustMovies.com
Webhead2006 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 07:06 PM   #115
SuperDaniel
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,782
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreak_st View Post


It's not a proven failure. Realize this: times change. People who started out reading superman were in the midst of the Great Depression. They had very little to look forward to except for things like comic books. The character was there hero b/c he fought the injustices they experienced. He wasn't exactly a complex character, i just re-read my reprint of action comics #1 and he reads like the average tough guy hero of the pulp serials. Like a John Wayne with super powers and tights. His powers were probably on par with Spiderman since he punched his human opponents and jumped everywhere he just so happened to also be bullet proof.

Times changed. As the silver age progressed the character was expanded with near limitless abilities. He faced increasingly out of this world situations and most people couldn't identify with him.

Marvel comics introduced characters that were people first, heroes second and the public jumped on it. Finally there were characters they could relate to vs the over-the-top anitcs of someone like superman. Bryne was brought in to take superman back to the basics as they say in spidey the movie "take it back to formula". It included making clark a more viable part of the formula, one that you can actually relate to. He succeeded to a degree.

Both Lois and Clark and Smallville have used that paradigm of Clark being the real person. L&C lasted for 4 seasons and Smallville has lasted for 9. Like it or not that is quite impressive for a television series about a comic book character. He's obviously still immensely popular or success like that of a long running show like Smallville wouldn't be there. Also the animated series focused on the same basic Byrne elements. If anything it made superman relevant for a new generation and as such he remains in the public conscious today. That's hardly a sign of failure.

If you don't like it fine, admit it but please stop accusing this take on the character for his demise or some other nonsense.

Today people have some many other resources available to them, tv, internet, movies, video games, so no comic books aren't nearly as popular as they once were. You have generations who have been able to experience the character of superman without ever picking up a comic. And much of their experience has included the Clark as the real person while Superman is his creation.

At this point in time, the movie going audience wants more from their heroes, not necessarily dark motivations or whatever, but more well developed, characters, bruce from the batman movies is a good example as is Tony Stark. You keep saying how they need to go back to the clark is the mask version, but tell me how would you translate that into a movie? How would you develop the character in a way that the audience can actually invest their emotions into? You want to kill his parents also, right? How do we as an audience get an inside look at the character with his parents out of the way and no one else to serve as his "sounding board"? Please start thinking about these very real issues from a filmmaking standpoint instead of as a disgruntled fan.
Very Well Said.

SuperDaniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 07:21 PM   #116
Mr. Earle
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,929
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreak_st View Post


It's not a proven failure. Realize this: times change. People who started out reading superman were in the midst of the Great Depression. They had very little to look forward to except for things like comic books. The character was there hero b/c he fought the injustices they experienced. He wasn't exactly a complex character, i just re-read my reprint of action comics #1 and he reads like the average tough guy hero of the pulp serials. Like a John Wayne with super powers and tights. His powers were probably on par with Spiderman since he punched his human opponents and jumped everywhere he just so happened to also be bullet proof.

Times changed. As the silver age progressed the character was expanded with near limitless abilities. He faced increasingly out of this world situations and most people couldn't identify with him.

Marvel comics introduced characters that were people first, heroes second and the public jumped on it. Finally there were characters they could relate to vs the over-the-top anitcs of someone like superman. Bryne was brought in to take superman back to the basics as they say in spidey the movie "take it back to formula". It included making clark a more viable part of the formula, one that you can actually relate to. He succeeded to a degree.

Both Lois and Clark and Smallville have used that paradigm of Clark being the real person. L&C lasted for 4 seasons and Smallville has lasted for 9. Like it or not that is quite impressive for a television series about a comic book character. He's obviously still immensely popular or success like that of a long running show like Smallville wouldn't be there. Also the animated series focused on the same basic Byrne elements. If anything it made superman relevant for a new generation and as such he remains in the public conscious today. That's hardly a sign of failure.

If you don't like it fine, admit it but please stop accusing this take on the character for his demise or some other nonsense.

Today people have some many other resources available to them, tv, internet, movies, video games, so no comic books aren't nearly as popular as they once were. You have generations who have been able to experience the character of superman without ever picking up a comic. And much of their experience has included the Clark as the real person while Superman is his creation.

At this point in time, the movie going audience wants more from their heroes, not necessarily dark motivations or whatever, but more well developed, characters, bruce from the batman movies is a good example as is Tony Stark. You keep saying how they need to go back to the clark is the mask version, but tell me how would you translate that into a movie? How would you develop the character in a way that the audience can actually invest their emotions into? You want to kill his parents also, right? How do we as an audience get an inside look at the character with his parents out of the way and no one else to serve as his "sounding board"? Please start thinking about these very real issues from a filmmaking standpoint instead of as a disgruntled fan.


Well said!

I hated Donner's Clark (is it the Silver Age version Clark?) even when i knew no different. How can anyone relate to that bozo? Or do people buy Tarantino's "Clark is Superman's criticism of humanity" speech? Clark is too noble to criticize, especially when he believes in humanity and would never think of us as bozos. Is it our fault that our sun doesnt give us powers? Because if it is, then Kryptonians are bozos in their home planet as well.
Clark should be the real person, perhaps being a little more shy as he would normally be, crouching his back a bit, and all that. But that's normal. Parker doesnt walk around all confident either, Bruce (the comics one who has gone past the drunk playboy cover) tries to be awkward and naive from time to time, and Stark acts if he'd never get his hands dirty and become Ironman.

Quote:
Both Lois and Clark and Smallville have used that paradigm of Clark being the real person. L&C lasted for 4 seasons and Smallville has lasted for 9.
You forgot STAS.


Last edited by Mr. Earle; 02-17-2010 at 07:24 PM.
Mr. Earle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 07:37 PM   #117
Kurosawa
Banned User
 
Kurosawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 22,300 miles above the Earth
Posts: 9,485
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreak_st View Post


It's not a proven failure. Realize this: times change. People who started out reading superman were in the midst of the Great Depression. They had very little to look forward to except for things like comic books. The character was there hero b/c he fought the injustices they experienced. He wasn't exactly a complex character, i just re-read my reprint of action comics #1 and he reads like the average tough guy hero of the pulp serials. Like a John Wayne with super powers and tights. His powers were probably on par with Spiderman since he punched his human opponents and jumped everywhere he just so happened to also be bullet proof.
Yes, and that was also a character that stood against authority. In this day and age when we are going through a similar economic downturn (although not quite as severe or even close), a populist Superman would work well.

Quote:
Times changed. As the silver age progressed the character was expanded with near limitless abilities. He faced increasingly out of this world situations and most people couldn't identify with him.
His comics at that time mostly dealt with personal issues and they sold the most they ever did. His power level and often his powers period were often not important. That period that is slammed so heavily was easily the most successful of the characters history.

Quote:
Marvel comics introduced characters that were people first, heroes second and the public jumped on it. Finally there were characters they could relate to vs the over-the-top anitcs of someone like superman. Bryne was brought in to take superman back to the basics as they say in spidey the movie "take it back to formula". It included making clark a more viable part of the formula, one that you can actually relate to. He succeeded to a degree.
The problem is Byrne supposedly was brought in to take the character back to basics, but instead they ignored all previous incarnations and created a completely different character and gave it the Superman name. Had they truly went back to basics with Superman as they did with Batman, then they would have went back to the earliest stories and built on that. Instead they ignored everything that came before them.

Quote:
Both Lois and Clark and Smallville have used that paradigm of Clark being the real person. L&C lasted for 4 seasons and Smallville has lasted for 9. Like it or not that is quite impressive for a television series about a comic book character. He's obviously still immensely popular or success like that of a long running show like Smallville wouldn't be there. Also the animated series focused on the same basic Byrne elements. If anything it made superman relevant for a new generation and as such he remains in the public conscious today. That's hardly a sign of failure.
Lois and Clark was Moonlighting with Superman as a guest star. It was good at times and annoying at times. Smallville is very hit-and miss, although Rosenbaum was great as Luthor and I'm not a Welling hater. The late 80's syndicated Superboy series was better than either of them and was only canceled because WB wanted to do L&C. One way or another there's been a Superman-related TV show almost continuously since 1988, which is staggering. The animated series looked nice but Superman was always unimpressive and I don't think Timm gets Superman at all. Batman guys usually don't get Supes.

Quote:
If you don't like it fine, admit it but please stop accusing this take on the character for his demise or some other nonsense.
Looks, walks, quacks like a duck, etc. Superman didn't become a joke and Batman's ***** until Byrne turned him into a Jethro Bodine half retarded big blue boy scout.

Quote:
Today people have some many other resources available to them, tv, internet, movies, video games, so no comic books aren't nearly as popular as they once were. You have generations who have been able to experience the character of superman without ever picking up a comic. And much of their experience has included the Clark as the real person while Superman is his creation.
Poor excuse. Look at the sales of Harry Potter and Twilight books. Look at the popularity of manga. Even within the way smaller market that comics now have, Superman doesn't sell like it should.

Quote:
At this point in time, the movie going audience wants more from their heroes, not necessarily dark motivations or whatever, but more well developed, characters, bruce from the batman movies is a good example as is Tony Stark. You keep saying how they need to go back to the clark is the mask version, but tell me how would you translate that into a movie? How would you develop the character in a way that the audience can actually invest their emotions into? You want to kill his parents also, right? How do we as an audience get an inside look at the character with his parents out of the way and no one else to serve as his "sounding board"? Please start thinking about these very real issues from a filmmaking standpoint instead of as a disgruntled fan.
It didn't seem to hurt anything for Clark to be the disguise for 50+ years and first two Reeve movies. If it's done well, people will respond to it. If Superman is written with the heroic figure a disguise and the whining human identity the reality, then he is the same as Spider-Man or Daredevil or any number of other characters. They made Superman into a Marvel character and took away who he was. Tarantino is very close in Kill Bill when he had Carradine discuss Superman, except that Clark is more like a tribute to the human race than a critique. Bill is right until he pigeonholes Clark as nothing more than a mere coward. I like to think of Clark as Superman's vulnerable side. Keeping the Kents alive keeps Superman perpetually Superboy and makes him more fit into the Spider-Man persona, which is fine for what it is but simply is NOT Superman. What they have creates is a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid, as their Superman is a simple farmboy with a creative side (Colossus is an artist), but is overall very simple and good. Well, that's all well and fine except Superman is NOT simple. He's the son of one of the greatest scientists in the Universe, he's a scientist himself, and he is a cerebral guy. Superman should be mature, confident and urbanized. The farmboy junk is crap and makes the character into something he's not. One can be virtuous and cosmopolitan.

What DC did was they brought in a Marvel guy to Marvelize Superman. The Post-Crisis Superman is a weak cross between Spider-Man and Colossus. The books sales, popularity and relevance have massively waned in that time, bolstered only by stunts like killing the character or marrying him off, although I will admit the Doomsday story was a pretty great story. Batman maintains his popularity and connectivity with people BECAUSE they have stuck to his roots and the core of the character. What they did with Superman was jettison EVERYTHING Jerry Siegel and the writers after him had done, keeping NOTHING but the name and visual. That character has as much in common with what Siegel created as a character like The Sentry or Supreme or any number of Superman ripoffs. They got rid of everything that had made the character a massive success.

The audience related to Superman for 50+ years because the character represents wish fulfillment and the idea that we can be more than what people perceive us to be. The audience should relate to Clark and awe at Superman. That's the forumla that worked for 50 years and that's what the character was created to do. Batman is bigger than ever because DC has stuck with what Finger and Kane created him to be. With Superman, they've screwed with the basics too much, and the results show.


Last edited by Kurosawa; 02-17-2010 at 07:43 PM.
Kurosawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 07:40 PM   #118
Mr. Earle
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,929
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
What makes Superman unique is that he is the real person, and the civilian identity the disguise.
Eating your own feces is unique too. Do you want that?
Quote:
Nolan hopefully wouldn't have Clark as the "real person" because Jerry Siegel, who created Superman, did not have Clark as the real personality.
Kane's first design of Batman was a dude in a white and red suit without gloves. These characters have been refined after decades of storytelling and they have evolved to appeal to the people of each era. Maybe Siegel's Superman was great back then, but that doesnt mean anything for out time. Why does everyone insist on going back to the roots? The characters have long progressed from that point.
Quote:
When they got away from the basics with Superman, the character lost popularity and relevance. Batman flourishes because the character has kept true to it's roots.
So people cant relate to a more human Clark but miss the caricature that he was back then? Or is it that "Batman and Robin" is currently DC's best seller because it sticks to Batman's roots? Let me remind you that Dick Grayson is currently Batman (a happy one at that), Damian is Robin (a dark one), and they havent faced a Bruce villain yet.

So you see, Superman lost popularity due to other reasons. Maybe because:
mullet + electic superman + EXTREEEEEME 90ies = crap

In any case, the character's current rejuvenation has nothing to do with John's Donner-esque origin redo, but with Clark getting an adoptive son (Mon-El) and the New Krypton storyline.
Btw, Johns' Superman origin is obviously Silver Age influenced because Johns loves Silver Age and the heroes he grew up with. But even he doesnt write Donner's Clark. Its Byrne's Clark with some klutz for lols and avoiding suspicion.


Last edited by Mr. Earle; 02-17-2010 at 08:11 PM.
Mr. Earle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 07:41 PM   #119
Daybreak_st
Old-School Comic Cool
 
Daybreak_st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,623
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Earle View Post


You forgot STAS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreak_st View Post




Both Lois and Clark and Smallville have used that paradigm of Clark being the real person. L&C lasted for 4 seasons and Smallville has lasted for 9. Like it or not that is quite impressive for a television series about a comic book character. He's obviously still immensely popular or success like that of a long running show like Smallville wouldn't be there. Also the animated series focused on the same basic Byrne elements. If anything it made superman relevant for a new generation and as such he remains in the public conscious today. That's hardly a sign of failure.

Brofist was awesome!!! And as you can see i mentioned the animated series just not familiar with the abbreviation. Thanks man!

Daybreak_st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 07:51 PM   #120
Mr. Earle
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,929
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreak_st View Post
Brofist was awesome!!! And as you can see i mentioned the animated series just not familiar with the abbreviation. Thanks man!
I missed it somehow.

Mr. Earle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 08:09 PM   #121
Mr. Earle
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,929
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post
Yes, and that was also a character that stood against authority. In this day and age when we are going through a similar economic downturn (although not quite as severe or even close), a populist Superman would work well.



His comics at that time mostly dealt with personal issues and they sold the most they ever did. His power level and often his powers period were often not important. That period that is slammed so heavily was easily the most successful of the characters history.



The problem is Byrne supposedly was brought in to take the character back to basics, but instead they ignored all previous incarnations and created a completely different character and gave it the Superman name. Had they truly went back to basics with Superman as they did with Batman, then they would have went back to the earliest stories and built on that. Instead they ignored everything that came before them.



Lois and Clark was Moonlighting with Superman as a guest star. It was good at times and annoying at times. Smallville is very hit-and miss, although Rosenbaum was great as Luthor and I'm not a Welling hater. The late 80's syndicated Superboy series was better than either of them and was only canceled because WB wanted to do L&C. One way or another there's been a Superman-related TV show almost continuously since 1988, which is staggering. The animated series looked nice but Superman was always unimpressive and I don't think Timm gets Superman at all. Batman guys usually don't get Supes.



Looks, walks, quacks like a duck, etc. Superman didn't become a joke and Batman's ***** until Byrne turned him into a Jethro Bodine half retarded big blue boy scout.



Poor excuse. Look at the sales of Harry Potter and Twilight books. Look at the popularity of manga. Even within the way smaller market that comics now have, Superman doesn't sell like it should.



It didn't seem to hurt anything for Clark to be the disguise for 50+ years and first two Reeve movies. If it's done well, people will respond to it. If Superman is written with the heroic figure a disguise and the whining human identity the reality, then he is the same as Spider-Man or Daredevil or any number of other characters. They made Superman into a Marvel character and took away who he was. Tarantino is very close in Kill Bill when he had Carradine discuss Superman, except that Clark is more like a tribute to the human race than a critique. Bill is right until he pigeonholes Clark as nothing more than a mere coward. I like to think of Clark as Superman's vulnerable side. Keeping the Kents alive keeps Superman perpetually Superboy and makes him more fit into the Spider-Man persona, which is fine for what it is but simply is NOT Superman. What they have creates is a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid, as their Superman is a simple farmboy with a creative side (Colossus is an artist), but is overall very simple and good. Well, that's all well and fine except Superman is NOT simple. He's the son of one of the greatest scientists in the Universe, he's a scientist himself, and he is a cerebral guy. Superman should be mature, confident and urbanized. The farmboy junk is crap and makes the character into something he's not. One can be virtuous and cosmopolitan.

What DC did was they brought in a Marvel guy to Marvelize Superman. The Post-Crisis Superman is a weak cross between Spider-Man and Colossus. The books sales, popularity and relevance have massively waned in that time, bolstered only by stunts like killing the character or marrying him off, although I will admit the Doomsday story was a pretty great story. Batman maintains his popularity and connectivity with people BECAUSE they have stuck to his roots and the core of the character. What they did with Superman was jettison EVERYTHING Jerry Siegel and the writers after him had done, keeping NOTHING but the name and visual. That character has as much in common with what Siegel created as a character like The Sentry or Supreme or any number of Superman ripoffs. They got rid of everything that had made the character a massive success.

The audience related to Superman for 50+ years because the character represents wish fulfillment and the idea that we can be more than what people perceive us to be. The audience should relate to Clark and awe at Superman. That's the forumla that worked for 50 years and that's what the character was created to do. Batman is bigger than ever because DC has stuck with what Finger and Kane created him to be. With Superman, they've screwed with the basics too much, and the results show.
Times change and Superman's popularity dropped because Marvel introduced more human characters. Even if they write Superman like he used to be, he'll never be as successful. Not to mention that this isnt the 40ies.

And you're defending Tarantino's crap? Really?
Didnt that Clark make you sad? How could Lois ever fall for him, how could anyone be friends with him? It went beyond "i'll act shy to avoid suspicion", it was borderline idiotic. How could he live half of his day like this?

Mr. Earle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 08:20 PM   #122
Daybreak_st
Old-School Comic Cool
 
Daybreak_st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,623
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa View Post

Lois and Clark was Moonlighting with Superman as a guest star. It was good at times and annoying at times. Smallville is very hit-and miss, although Rosenbaum was great as Luthor and I'm not a Welling hater. The late 80's syndicated Superboy series was better than either of them and was only canceled because WB wanted to do L&C. One way or another there's been a Superman-related TV show almost continuously since 1988, which is staggering. The animated series looked nice but Superman was always unimpressive and I don't think Timm gets Superman at all. Batman guys usually don't get Supes.
Regardless of your personal feelings about the show both Lois and Clark and Smallville appeal to a massive audience that isn't simply made up of fanboys but the general populace. It gives them a character to relate to that they can enjoy watching. And i for one loved the animated series, Bruce Timm, gets superman at least on some level, not as well as batman tho. Also i've recently watched season one of the superboy show and a few episodes of season 2 and the acting was aweful. Period. I liked it as a kid but as an adult, it is aweful. I can post some clips if you want but just saying i liked it in its time but i in no way think it's superior to something like smallville, despite smallville's obvious flaws.

Quote:

Looks, walks, quacks like a duck, etc. Superman didn't become a joke and Batman's ***** until Byrne turned him into a Jethro Bodine half retarded big blue boy scout.
I get what your saying here but not every modern depiction of the character has this, just look at the panels from Birthright i posted earlier to see. Also showing a better version of superman doesn't automatically mean jettisoning the solid clark kent. it just means, writing a better superman.



Quote:
Poor excuse. Look at the sales of Harry Potter and Twilight books. Look at the popularity of manga. Even within the way smaller market that comics now have, Superman doesn't sell like it should.
I dare you to list the number of people you know personally under the age of 20 who regularly buy comics? I'm a regular at my local store and kids simply don't but comics much anymore. I didn't say they don't read anymore just not buying comics, and manga is a different thing in itself, a lot of the pokemon generation likes the japanese style, thus they also get manga. I also have friend at work who has little interests in superheroes but enjoys manga and anime. It's honestly a different crowd. Comics use to be geared toward kids and that's where the popularity lay. Once that changed, also around 1985, it became more of an adult medium. I know few adults who start picking up comics once they grow up. Most simply continue the habit they had as youngsters. As a fan of the earliest version of the character i'm assuming you fall into this category. How many of your contemporaries still buy comics today?

the simple answer is a lot of people out grew the habit or were too busy to keep up with it as they aged. And comics have failed to attract a new younger generation with a few execeptions. That's why comic popularity as a whole has waned not just superman.

Quote:
Keeping the Kents alive keeps Superman perpetually Superboy and makes him more fit into the Spider-Man persona, which is fine for what it is but simply is NOT Superman.
So for every person to truly grow up their parents need to die? Say what I'm sorry but i don't buy it. Plenty of adults have fully formed personalities and great relationships with their parents. The kents are just fine being alive. It doesn't make him superboy. He doesn't have to run to them with every proplem he has but they sure don't need to be killed off to make him a man.

Also that's exactly what happens to every superhero. You say you want him "special" and "unique". Killing of his parents is the biggest superhero cliche this side of wearing spandex! Having his parents still alive and serving as a sounding board works well in live action. We don't get word balloons or a narrator to spell out exactly how he's affected by what going on. He needs someone to talk to so we as an audience will care. Live action is different from a comic. SR was aweful when it came to its portrayl of superman as he barely spoke. The old movies were fine for their day but if not for nostalgia glasses i don't think they'd still be viewed in such high regard. A lot of it was campy. You try that formula again with a modern audience and i'm pretty sure it wouldn't fly.

I don't define being a man as being a one diminsional tough guy ala john wayne who never shows emotions. I think the general audience would agree with me. That worked in cinema in the 1920s -80s but today's modern audience favors a thinking man's hero. the tough talking guy doesn't cut it anymore. Superman can a solid manly character without bullying people around. I think today's audience enjoys more complex heroes that show various aspects of their personality and a variety of emotions.

Quote:
He's the son of one of the greatest scientists in the Universe, he's a scientist himself, and he is a cerebral guy. Superman should be mature, confident and urbanized. The farmboy junk is crap and makes the character into something he's not. One can be virtuous and cosmopolitan.
I agree, but that has everything to do with how he's written in each individual story. It's that simple. Just write the character well, you don't have to back and retcon him again.


[QUOTE]
The audience related to Superman for 50+ years because the character represents wish fulfillment and the idea that we can be more than what people perceive us to be. QUOTE]

Doesn't every superhero ? Seriously what you're describing is spiderman to a T. He's the nerdy guy who gets powers now the world's his oyster or so he thinks at the begining. Every superhero is about wish fulfillment! Ok maybe not Batman, but pretty much anyone with powers. At least that's how i always viewed them. It's no secret i love me some superheroes .

You make valid points but what i'm saying 1) look at it from a filmaking perspective, how do we get the audience to care about the character, and invest their emotions in him and 2) why can't this be solved by using an amalagam of what's worked over his entire 70 year history, taking the strongest elements from various generations?


Last edited by Daybreak_st; 02-17-2010 at 09:08 PM.
Daybreak_st is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 08:29 PM   #123
Mr. Earle
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13,929
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreak_st View Post
So for every person to truly grow up their parents need to die? Say what I'm sorry but i don't buy it. Plenty of adults have fully formed personalities and great relationships with their parents. The kents are just fine being alive. It doesn't make him superboy. He doesn't have to run to them with every proplem he has but they sure don't need to be killed off to make him a man.
I dont get why he wants to kill the Kents either. I loved that L&C kept both of them alive.
Besides, they live in Kansas. He rarely flies there or he just calls them. That's all.

Btw, here's a funny picture with Martha:


Last edited by Mr. Earle; 02-17-2010 at 08:33 PM.
Mr. Earle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 08:31 PM   #124
Kurosawa
Banned User
 
Kurosawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 22,300 miles above the Earth
Posts: 9,485
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Earle View Post
Eating your own feces is unique too. Do you want that?
Kane's first design of Batman was a dude in a white and red suit without gloves. These characters have been refined after decades of storytelling and they have evolved to appeal to the people of each era. Maybe Siegel's Superman was great back then, but that doesnt mean anything for out time. Why does everyone insist on going back to the roots? The characters have long progressed from that point.
So people cant relate to a more human Clark but miss the caricature that he was back then? Or is it that "Batman and Robin" is currently DC's best seller because it sticks to Batman's roots? Let me remind you that Dick Grayson is currently Batman, Damian is Robin, and they havent faced a Bruce villain yet.

So you see, Superman lost popularity due to other reasons. Maybe because:
mullet + electic superman + EXTREEEEEME 90ies = crap

In any case, the character's current rejuvenation has nothing to do with John's Donner-esque origin redo, but with Clark getting an adoptive son (Mon-El) and the New Krypton storyline.
Btw, Johns' Superman origin is obviously Silver Age influenced because Johns loves Silver Age and the heroes he grew up with. Why do you think he brought Hal and Barry back?
50+ years of stories is hardly Bob Kane's original design. Batman and Robin is DC's best seller because it has the Batman name on it and that brand is successful and has been for years. And everyone knows Bruce will be back. Why do people want Superman to be a generic Marvelized character? I find the duality between Superman and Clark with Clark being an act but also a personal need and habit of Superman's to be much more complex and interesting that Superman being just another Peter Parker/Matt Murdock type. The 90's crap all happened because they went too far from the basics in the first place. Staying true to the core is 100% why Batman is still HUGE and getting away from it has crippled Superman.

Why do people want Superman to be twisted around and turned into something that is 100% the opposite of his longest and most successful characterization? It would be like turning Cyclops into a drunken frat boy or something.

And the new Johns origin is just Silver Age concepts grafted onto Byrne's character. It makes no one happy and just disappoints both sides. All-Star Superman is what I want, and the regular DCU can have the Byrne version if they must. I do not want Byrne's version 100% gone because I didn't like it when they completely got rid of the Pre-Crisis version.

Kurosawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 08:47 PM   #125
Daybreak_st
Old-School Comic Cool
 
Daybreak_st's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,623
Default Re: Re-Imagining Clark Kent (Just Clark)...pics are strongly encouraged

The original batman also used a gun. Yet he doesn't now. And he's still popular...hmmm.

Daybreak_st is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.