Come on Superdaniel, your posts are so aggressive. I followed the discussion since 3 pages and it was clever talk and exchange, for once, but you are really aggressive, you "should learn to discuss things properly" too. And I disagree with every point you made previously.
I agree with Kurosawa a lot, but not completely. Superman, like most superheroes, was created by several persons, and I think containing Superman into just what Siegel and Shuster did, is not good. I suffer the same problem with Batman, Kurosawa. I hate what the character is or has become, but it seems the character evolves without me, so to speak. I prefer Dick by far right now.
I think Byrne brought a lot of good things on the table. To me, Clark is the real person because he has been educated this way. Period. What makes the character interesting to me, is that he is Kal El and Superman too. He is related to the three sides.
I preferred Superman as he was before, not the american son. Especially since he became the embodiment of the US spirit.
I did not know Smallville in the Kansas was from the Donner universe, I thought that was from the comics, in the 50es. The big debate, I think, is that some people want Superman to be a US symbol. I do not give a **** if Smallville is in the Kansas or not. I think we should like the character through what he did to become Superman, not through what he did to embody US values. At the beginning the talk was about Smallville place and the growth of a man, it seems that people are getting fast excited if Smallville does not represent US might. I find this sad.
Both places are fine for me. But as a matter of fact, I like the idea of Smallville being in the north east, it always appeared odd to me that a guy from the a** of the world, lost in the small small village in the middle of the US would directly go to the big city and be Superman. I suppose it attracts the US readers who see a american way to succeed in life.
I think, with all due respect Kurosawa, that your way of thinking goes too far, I think what you see is beyond the character. I think your talk is about a general problem. People use the fictional characters according to the era they live in, so Superman went through a lot of different changes. I like Byrne version because it is the basis of the mythos.
From there, you can choose if Clark become more Superman, more Clark or more Kal El. I mean that your thinking may be far bigger than just Superman. You see what I mean?
I think one of the weakness of Superman today, is the lack of direction of the character, that, plus the Überbat everywhere. I think that Superman not "selling" so good, is partly due to what people expect from a super-man. Right now, I think batman embodies what people want from a super man. Not my taste anyway. Just in general. Positivity in not the fashion these days anyway.
I agree that golden age Superman had a lot of excellent concept, but I definitively defend the ideas, some at least, of John Byrne.
Anyway, I learn few things reading you and D.Tyler. I just find there are good things in what you both say. Oddly, I found your views are complementary.
