The Official Kevin Costner IS Pa Kent Thread

[hopefuldreamer]

I would LOVE Kevin Costner as Pa Kent... in fact, i'm so excited about it, I don't know why I didn't think of it before

[GreenKToo]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I'm not sure how "old" Costner is going to look playing Pa Kent, but think Helen Mirren is a solid choice. She's a great actress and she worked with Snyder before on Guardians.

Not that it matters, but I think she is like 10 years his senior. not bad.

[BH/HHH]

Originally Posted by hopefulsuicide

I would LOVE Kevin Costner as Pa Kent... in fact, i'm so excited about it, I don't know why I didn't think of it before

Its weird cause he does seem an obvious choice when you look at it yet nobody (or almost nobody) thought of him.

[Astrodust]

Kevin Costner is a perfect example of how a big name actor can strengthen the appeal for a movie. It brings in people outside the fanbase. Throw 2 or 3 more big names together and people will come to see the film out of pure curiosity, much like how you and I follow our favorite actors.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by KyleDW2

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the most arrogant and full of himself Superman fan I have ever encountered. Oh yes, the only good comics are the ones you like. Everything else is a "fail comic." Sure smells like smug B.S. in here.

First of all, I have no ego when it comes to my opinions about Superman. It's not about being right to me. It's about the character and it's about his creators. I matter not at all. And no, the comics you grew up with were fail comics because since several of the key elements of Superman were changed in the mid 80's, the character began to decline in relevance and respect to the point he is in now, a distant-DISTANT second to Batman, and close to falling to #3 at his own company, and WELL down the line when both DC and Marvel heroes are taken into account. I'm not 100% on board with the arrogant Bat-God of the last 25 years but I couldn't for a second say that it has hurt Batman in terms of success and relevance, because Batman is bigger than ever. I personally liked Batman better when he wasn't an insufferable ass, but I freely admit that the changes they made to his character did lead to higher sales and bigger movies. Besides even though the changes in Batman were pretty deep, they did not turn him 360 degrees from what Bill Finger created Batman to be.

Besides, we're not even talking about the comics. We're talking about the film that Kevin Costner is gonna be in. And the addition of the Kents works better on film, even if you think that it doesn't work in the comics (which it does). Batman has Alfred to talk to. Peter Parker has Aunt May for Peter problems and Mary Jane for Spidey problems. Who does Superman have to talk to? Lois? She's just a super groupie in her Silver Age depiction (and before you start in, yes, I have read tons of Silver Age Superman and all the Golden Age I can get my hands on), and in the post-Crisis continuity he wasn't that close to her until he got her to like Clark Kent. The person Superman talks to, his Alfred and Aunt May, are his parents. That's how we know what is going on inside his head. They're the Obi-Wan, the Sallah, the Samwise Gamgee. To take them out of at least the first film would be to leave Superman stranded and alone. You know, kind of like how he was in Superman Returns. Who did Superman talk to in that movie? Who could he talk to?

The fact that we are discussing the movie makes getting Superman right even more important. If Superman is portrayed as a self-doubting child who has to run home to his mommy in a film, then even MORE people will see him as a spineless punk than they already do. They want to change Superman's image as a character who is too perfect to be taken seriously, then they do it in a movie by going back to what worked when Superman was the most successful character in comics and one of the biggest characters in American pop culture.

Now as for the comics, your previous statements lead me to seriously doubt you've read much Golden/Silver/Bronze Age Superman comics or else you wouldn't have repeated the DC propaganda machine's claims that those comics were all Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy and Beppo the Super-Monkey. And yes, once the Kents were left alive-again a change I initially liked-then Superman did have an Alfred/Aunt May/Obi-Wan type of mentor...but that's the problem, you see. Because Superman was unique before in that he was the man that his supporting cast went to for help, for guidance, for support, and Ma and Pa Kent were left to his past as Superboy where you could see him learning how to be the great hero that he grew up to be as Superman. That's why even John Byrne admits that getting rid of Superboy was a mistake, because it kept Superman himself in a juvenile mode. I hate hate HATE killing character, I feel it is a waste and it is with a ton of regret that I have come to the conclusion that keeping them alive hurt Superman. I don't even think it is the biggest issue with Superman. But it is one of the problems.

Plus, like some others have pointed out, Superman is one of the few heroes to have a normal and functioning family life. I like that about him. It makes him special. Not every hero's life has to be miserable and lonely like Spider-Man's.

What made Superman more special was that he was the leader of his kind, the central character in his world that others drew strength from. A Superman full of self-doubt and self-loathing who constantly has to be reminded of his worth is an annoying whiner. I'd much rather see him a bit lonely and detached than see him questioning himself and his mission as often as they have had him do. His family life in the Steel Age was not normal and functioning-it was saccharine and too good to be believed.

[JAK®]

Some people need to read more Bronze Age Superman.

[Kurosawa]

Yes, they do.

[Dark Knight]

Costner as Jonathan Kent. Nice!

Now they should look at casting Diane Lane as Martha Kent if possible.

[KyleDW2]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

First of all, I have no ego when it comes to my opinions about Superman. It's not about being right to me. It's about the character and it's about his creators. I matter not at all. And no, the comics you grew up with were fail comics because since several of the key elements of Superman were changed in the mid 80's, the character began to decline in relevance and respect to the point he is in now, a distant-DISTANT second to Batman, and close to falling to #3 at his own company, and WELL down the line when both DC and Marvel heroes are taken into account. I'm not 100% on board with the arrogant Bat-God of the last 25 years but I couldn't for a second say that it has hurt Batman in terms of success and relevance, because Batman is bigger than ever. I personally liked Batman better when he wasn't an insufferable ass, but I freely admit that the changes they made to his character did lead to higher sales and bigger movies. Besides even though the changes in Batman were pretty deep, they did not turn him 360 degrees from what Bill Finger created Batman to be.

Didn't change Batman that much, huh?

*Flips through his collection of Golden Age Batman and sees a character that, though he works in the night, still has a sense of humor and humanity and takes time out of his daily war against crime to enjoy life with his ward Dick Grayson*

*Flips through modern Batman comics where Bruce Wayne completely disappeared into his Batman persona and became the grimdark "MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEAAAAAAAADDD!!! dark avenger who only was kept from going completely insane because Dick Grayson was there to pull him back from the brink of madness.*

Oh yes, those are completely the same character. The modern Batman is totally what he was meant to be, O.M.A.C. creating paranoid time travelling God shooting Bat god and all.

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

The fact that we are discussing the movie makes getting Superman right even more important. If Superman is portrayed as a self-doubting child who has to run home to his mommy in a film, then even MORE people will see him as a spineless punk than they already do. They want to change Superman's image as a character who is too perfect to be taken seriously, then they do it in a movie by going back to what worked when Superman was the most successful character in comics and one of the biggest characters in American pop culture.

So running back to mommy makes people dislike him as a character? Huh.

*Rewatches the entire Spider-Man trilogy and sees that Peter Parker ran to Aunt May multiple times to get advice from her.*

Man, you are so totally right. The Spider-Man trilogy was a complete failure. I remember how absolutely nobody could get behind a character that needed help from his maternal figure. I even remember someone saying in these exact words, "Peter Parker is just a self-doubting child who has to run home to his mommy! Man, I sure see him as a spineless punk!" I totally agree. We should kill off his parents. Hell, let's blow up the Daily Planet and have Superman spend 100% of his time in his Fortress. He don't need nobody. Superman is super tough and doesn't afraid of anything!

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Now as for the comics, your previous statements lead me to seriously doubt you've read much Golden/Silver/Bronze Age Superman comics or else you wouldn't have repeated the DC propaganda machine's claims that those comics were all Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy and Beppo the Super-Monkey. And yes, once the Kents were left alive-again a change I initially liked-then Superman did have an Alfred/Aunt May/Obi-Wan type of mentor...but that's the problem, you see. Because Superman was unique before in that he was the man that his supporting cast went to for help, for guidance, for support, and Ma and Pa Kent were left to his past as Superboy where you could see him learning how to be the great hero that he grew up to be as Superman. That's why even John Byrne admits that getting rid of Superboy was a mistake, because it kept Superman himself in a juvenile mode. I hate hate HATE killing character, I feel it is a waste and it is with a ton of regret that I have come to the conclusion that keeping them alive hurt Superman. I don't even think it is the biggest issue with Superman. But it is one of the problems.

1) Or...I did read them and just didn't like them because they aren't full of the things you seem to think are there. This is like when I see Transformers fans saying how deep the old cartoon is. No, it isn't. What you are experiencing is nostalgia through rose colored glasses. Its nice and fun, but it is nowhere near deep. Reading those old stories from my perspective, as someone who grew up with the modern age (and apparently wrong, oh curse my wasted youth!) Superman, I just can't get into them.

2) We're not talking about the comics. We're talking about the movie. In the movie, Superman needs his Alfred character. We can't have Superman conveying all his emotions through facial expressions again. They tried that in Superman Returns. It didn't work that well. We need Superman to actually say things this time.

3) Going back to the comics for a second, you think that Superman being in "juvenile mode" keeps him from being popular. Yet the most popular character in comics right now, or at least one of them, is Spider-Man. Spider-Man, may I remind you, sold his marriage to the devil in order to save his Aunt May's life. Going by your logic, wouldn't that send Spider-Man sales tumbling? Well, despite the fact that the event itself was tremendously poor and not written well at all, Spidey is still up there. So...maybe Superman's problem is a different one?

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

What made Superman more special was that he was the leader of his kind, the central character in his world that others drew strength from. A Superman full of self-doubt and self-loathing who constantly has to be reminded of his worth is an annoying whiner. I'd much rather see him a bit lonely and detached than see him questioning himself and his mission as often as they have had him do. His family life in the Steel Age was not normal and functioning-it was saccharine and too good to be believed.

See comment I made about blowing up the Planet and living in the Fortress.

[Kurosawa]

I could really see her as Martha, especially if they are going the Birthright route.

[Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by elgaz

I know all that. I've already said Glenn Ford did a good job and it worked back then. Is no-one reading my post?

The only point I'm making is that a new version should have a more modern and younger Jonathan Kent.

I would prefer not to see a 70-80 year old Jonathen Kent either.

A mid 50-60's year old Pa Kent would be better to see this time around.

[Whiskey Tango]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

Now they should look at casting Diane Lane as Martha Kent if possible.

I do not hate this idea.

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by KyleDW2

Didn't change Batman that much, huh?

*Flips through his collection of Golden Age Batman and sees a character that, though he works in the night, still has a sense of humor and humanity and takes time out of his daily war against crime to enjoy life with his ward Dick Grayson*

*Flips through modern Batman comics where Bruce Wayne completely disappeared into his Batman persona and became the grimdark "MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEAAAAAAAADDD!!! dark avenger who only was kept from going completely insane because Dick Grayson was there to pull him back from the brink of madness.*

Oh yes, those are completely the same character. The modern Batman is totally what he was meant to be, O.M.A.C. creating paranoid time travelling God shooting Bat god and all.

I didn't say Batman wasn't changed. I also said I was not 100% on board with the changes they HAVE made. What I DID say was that I could not credibly argue that the changes they have made with Batman have hurt the character, because there is irrefutable proof that they have made Batman bigger than ever. And yes, Batman is different now...but nowhere near as different as Byrne made Superman when he turned the basic conceit of the character-that Superman is the real person and Clark Kent the disguise-completely around. Plus the changes in Batman lead to the character succeeding, while the changes in Superman has led to a split fan base and a character that is extremely diminished across the board.

So running back to mommy makes people dislike him as a character? Huh.

*Rewatches the entire Spider-Man trilogy and sees that Peter Parker ran to Aunt May multiple times to get advice from her.*

Man, you are so totally right. The Spider-Man trilogy was a complete failure. I remember how absolutely nobody could get behind a character that needed help from his maternal figure. I even remember someone saying in these exact words, "Peter Parker is just a self-doubting child who has to run home to his mommy! Man, I sure see him as a spineless punk!" I totally agree. We should kill off his parents. Hell, let's blow up the Daily Planet and have Superman spend 100% of his time in his Fortress. He don't need nobody. Superman is super tough and doesn't afraid of anything!

See, that's fine for Spider-Man. He's SUPPOSED to doubt and question himself and have a sense of worthlessness. So for Spidey, yes, Aunt May is close to indispensable. But doing that with Superman makes him into something he isn't-it makes him a child. And I have never suggested blowing up the Planet or anything like this...but the difference and the fundamental problem you have with understanding Superman is that he doesn't run to mommy with his problems...people run to him with their problems.

1) Or...I did read them and just didn't like them because they aren't full of the things you seem to think are there. This is like when I see Transformers fans saying how deep the old cartoon is. No, it isn't. What you are experiencing is nostalgia through rose colored glasses. Its nice and fun, but it is nowhere near deep. Reading those old stories from my perspective, as someone who grew up with the modern age (and apparently wrong, oh curse my wasted youth!) Superman, I just can't get into them.

You really just compared the writings of Jerry Siegel, Elliot S! Maggin, Otto Binder, Alan Moore and Cary Bates to freaking TRANSFORMERS??? REALLY?

2) We're not talking about the comics. We're talking about the movie. In the movie, Superman needs his Alfred character. We can't have Superman conveying all his emotions through facial expressions again. They tried that in Superman Returns. It didn't work that well. We need Superman to actually say things this time.

It's less how Superman conveys him emotions as it is what those emotions are. If Superman is a self-loathing, self-doubting crybaby then it won't matter who he talks to. Superman doesn't need an Alfred to keep his chin up. Superman is the one who makes people feel better about themselves and the world, not the other way around.

3) Going back to the comics for a second, you think that Superman being in "juvenile mode" keeps him from being popular. Yet the most popular character in comics right now, or at least one of them, is Spider-Man. Spider-Man, may I remind you, sold his marriage to the devil in order to save his Aunt May's life. Going by your logic, wouldn't that send Spider-Man sales tumbling? Well, despite the fact that the event itself was tremendously poor and not written well at all, Spidey is still up there. So...maybe Superman's problem is a different one?

No. People are turned off from Superman because his life with both his parents alive and a perfect marriage, along with how powerful he is, is all too good to be believed. And then on top of that, even with all his powers, the main thing he consistently does in the comics is fail. People only like losers to a certain degree, and they damn well don't like seeing someone who should be great spend most of his time getting owned. Basically Superman's life is great where it shouldn't be (his personal life) and joke where it should be great (his professional life).

See comment I made about blowing up the Planet and living in the Fortress.

Anyone who compares Classic Superman to Transformers has lost all credibility with me, sorry.

[Whiskey Tango]

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Anyone who compares Classic Superman to Transformers has lost all credibility with me, sorry.

Funny, I feel much the same about someone who feels that getting advice from ones parents somehow makes them less of a man.

[JAK®]

Fortunately, that's not the point he was making.

[Whiskey Tango]

Originally Posted by JAK®

Fortunately, that's not the point he was making.

Then maybe he shouldn't say things like

Originally Posted by Kurosawa

Running home to mommy and daddy for pie and advice while Batman deals with his own issues like a man is a good bit of why people look at Superman as a loser.

[Kal-El.9859]

Superman also confides in Lois...so if a man who shares his emotions and needs someone to talk to makes him a spineless punk then I guess you can throw me in that category...this has become a completely stupid conversation. Everyone needs someone to talk to..even the bums out on the streets need an ear to talk to. If Superman goes home to talk to his mom and dad I guess you'll just have to deal with it won't you?

[Superman Prime]

Originally Posted by Derek_Evans

Superman also confides in Lois...so if a man who shares his emotions and needs someone to talk to makes him a spineless punk then I guess you can throw me in that category...this has become a completely stupid conversation. Everyone needs someone to talk to..even the bums out on the streets need an ear to talk to. If Superman goes home to talk to his mom and dad I guess you'll just have to deal with it won't you?

That hardly makes Lois his mentor and source of wisdom.

[TruerToTheCore]

Originally Posted by KyleDW2

Didn't change Batman that much, huh?

*Flips through his collection of Golden Age Batman and sees a character that, though he works in the night, still has a sense of humor and humanity and takes time out of his daily war against crime to enjoy life with his ward Dick Grayson*

*Flips through modern Batman comics where Bruce Wayne completely disappeared into his Batman persona and became the grimdark "MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEAAAAAAAADDD!!! dark avenger who only was kept from going completely insane because Dick Grayson was there to pull him back from the brink of madness.*

Oh yes, those are completely the same character. The modern Batman is totally what he was meant to be, O.M.A.C. creating paranoid time travelling God shooting Bat god and all.

Obviously his characterization went through many changes but there is still a sense of continuity through the ages. You could also see that Batman kept his basic personality but it impressed itself differently depending on the environment (e.g. Batman's world became rougher so he became more extreme and so on ...).

But there is big schism between Superman, two totally different philosophies. One is a more of a mythological archetype, the other one is a Marvel character.

So running back to mommy makes people dislike him as a character? Huh.

*Rewatches the entire Spider-Man trilogy and sees that Peter Parker ran to Aunt May multiple times to get advice from her.*

Man, you are so totally right. The Spider-Man trilogy was a complete failure. I remember how absolutely nobody could get behind a character that needed help from his maternal figure. I even remember someone saying in these exact words, "Peter Parker is just a self-doubting child who has to run home to his mommy! Man, I sure see him as a spineless punk!" I totally agree. We should kill off his parents. Hell, let's blow up the Daily Planet and have Superman spend 100% of his time in his Fortress. He don't need nobody. Superman is super tough and doesn't afraid of anything!

Peter Parker is a teen. Spider-Man is more rooted in the high school / college thing (a little bit off topic: Here lies the big problem of aging Spider-Man, because an adult Peter Parker who still has the same problems as the teen one is a big loser.) Superman should be a grown-up man. Superboy is the character who is more like you want him to be.

To the other comments, you are just trying to dumb every statement down. That's not the way a discussion should be handled. Leave that amateur Schopenhauer approach out of this.

1) Or...I did read them and just didn't like them because they aren't full of the things you seem to think are there. [...]

You probably haven't read many. You also cannot compare the writing of a comic book 2011 with one from the 70s, totally different styles. But the general philosophy behind it you could try to understand, it's a meta thing, not the superficial things (stories, pictures).

2) We're not talking about the comics. We're talking about the movie. In the movie, Superman needs his Alfred character. We can't have Superman conveying all his emotions through facial expressions again. They tried that in Superman Returns. It didn't work that well. We need Superman to actually say things this time.

That's actually not a bad point, since Superman cannot use thought balloons in a movie to express his thoughts. Still, Superman should be a man of action, the time of self-doubts should fall into his Superboy years. Perhaps they should give him a dog. Krypto.

3) Going back to the comics for a second, you think that Superman being in "juvenile mode" keeps him from being popular. Yet the most popular character in comics right now, or at least one of them, is Spider-Man. Spider-Man, may I remind you, sold his marriage to the devil in order to save his Aunt May's life. Going by your logic, wouldn't that send Spider-Man sales tumbling? Well, despite the fact that the event itself was tremendously poor and not written well at all, Spidey is still up there. So...maybe Superman's problem is a different one?

You are not able to understand that Superman and Spider-Man are two completely different concepts, it seems.

[bunk]

Kevin Costner just stumbled upon this thread and changed his mind.

[scifiwolf]

Lol

[Kurosawa]

Originally Posted by Whiskey Tango

Then maybe he shouldn't say things like

There is a world of difference between a person going to their parents for advice and making Superman into Ritchie Cunningham. Superboy should run home to mommy. Superman shouldn't and the only way to prevent this-and also preserve the huge lesson that even his powers cannot stop death-is for the Kents to pass away when he reaches maturity.

Of course it's fine in reality and it's fine for other characters like Spider-Man. But for Superman it clearly doesn't work. And it's clear that it doesn't work because it, along with several other key changes, correlates with Superman's decline in relevance and prestige. If Superman was on top of the comics/fantasy world right now like Batman is, then it would be impossible to argue that the Post-Crisis changes hurt him. But he's not. The character is right next door to being a complete joke. They want to bring Superman back to his rightful place? Base the film version on the Superman who was king, not the Superman who has been Batman's ***** for 25 years now.

[Kal-El.9859]

what is it with you and your fascination with Ritchie Cunningham???

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I have always thought that Costner was a poor actor so count me as one who doesn't want him to get the role.

[Project862006]

poor actor?really

and it is just pa kent he aint a hard character to pull off