David Goyer hired to write Man of Steel

[SpiderByte]

That, and the glasses that change his eye color.

But that finally gives me an answer as to why nobody notices Superman looks almost exactly like Clark Kent.

 

[BH/HHH]

He doesnt just put on a pair of glasses, he dresses boring, slouches, acts like a different person, etc. Its still kind of absurd but maybe it would work, he basically makes it seem like Clark Kent been Superman is the dumbest thing anyone would even think of. It is amazing though how different people look wearing glasses, when I take mine off I look really different.

 

[GL's Light]

Superhero secret identities are one of the conceits of comic books that you've just got to suspend disbelief and roll with. Superman takes it further than most since he wears no mask at all, but most superheroes wear masks that would be insufficient to disguise their identities from people who know them well in their civilian alter egos, plus of course their voices would give them away if they didn't somehow modulate them. It's only superheroes who wear masks or helmets that completely cover their faces, or whose appearance actually changes, and whose voices are significantly modulated or changed who would have effective secret identities.

 

[kalelkilla]

It is true, you can look like two different people depending on what your wearing and how you present yourself with eyeglasses, hats, facial hair etc...it isn't that far fetched that noone in Metropolis takes a second look at mild mannered Clark Kent. But if he draws too much attention to himself as Clark then I can see why people start to realize that Clark is never around when Superman is. Plus the fact that Superman doesn't wear a mask may lead people to believe that he must be Superman all the time and doesn't have a secret identity and so noone is really looking for it. Now how to explain Lois...i'm at a complete loss.

 

[The Democrat]

Here is why I am happy with the news we've received thus far. We know how this team operates. They draw heavily from the source material to define their own version of the characters. With them using The Man Of Steel as a source I would say, and this is simply conjecture here, that we are going to see a significant portion of that run brought in as the ground work from which to build. Much like we saw with The Man Who Falls and of course Year One with BB.

As to the Origin, I have to go back to my memory on this, but I'm pretty sure Clark didn't find out he was from Krypton until after he started as Superman in MOS? If they are using MOS as the template that would seem to me to be how this will likely play out. His origin a mystery of sorts, likely connected to Brainiac, will be revealed through the film. That may be what they are referring to. Story wise that is far more compelling at the very least. As for Byrne's powering down of Superman, he was and in this film will be powered down, compared to what? If he is the most powerful man in the story than who is to say he is powered down? I mean really what is the reference point. Just because you don't see him do something doesn't mean he can't. I'm sure there will be elements from many silver age stories involved, much the same way they used stories from the silver age to define and flesh out BB an TDK. Just because this will be based primarily on Byrne's MOS doesn't mean it's a direct translation.

Look as a group we all have a way of feeling and feeding the hype. We make broad assumptions based on minimal information and a lot of times we derail our own hopes by getting in *****ing matches over the detail of an S or the strength of a man's jawline. It's ridiculous and fun and a little sad. What we know right now is simply this, Christopher Nolan was reported to be mentoring the Superman franchise, Goyer is writing it, Jonah Nolan may be involved somehow as well. It has been reported to be based on MoS and to include Lex and Brainiac. Everything else is conjecture. Everything else is our own hype. Our own arguments that existed here well before any of this started and will exist well past. Perhaps we need to separate our petty little fanboy disputes from the movie for once. Pre-Crisis or Post Crisis, it's still the big blue and I'll be sitting in the theaters if this news proves to be more than rumor and I'll forget about all my little opinions and enjoy the movie. Sure I'll ***** afterwards but chances are I'll ***** with a smile on my face.

 

[BH/HHH]

Here is why I am happy with the news we've received thus far. We know how this team operates. They draw heavily from the source material to define their own version of the characters. With them using The Man Of Steel as a source I would say, and this is simply conjecture here, that we are going to see a significant portion of that run brought in as the ground work from which to build. Much like we saw with The Man Who Falls and of course Year One with BB.

As to the Origin, I have to go back to my memory on this, but I'm pretty sure Clark didn't find out he was from Krypton until after he started as Superman in MOS? If they are using MOS as the template that would seem to me to be how this will likely play out. His origin a mystery of sorts, likely connected to Brainiac, will be revealed through the film. That may be what they are referring to. Story wise that is far more compelling at the very least. As for Byrne's powering down of Superman, he was and in this film will be powered down, compared to what? If he is the most powerful man in the story than who is to say he is powered down? I mean really what is the reference point. Just because you don't see him do something doesn't mean he can't. I'm sure there will be elements from many silver age stories involved, much the same way they used stories from the silver age to define and flesh out BB an TDK. Just because this will be based primarily on Byrne's MOS doesn't mean it's a direct translation.

Look as a group we all have a way of feeling and feeding the hype. We make broad assumptions based on minimal information and a lot of times we derail our own hopes by getting in *****ing matches over the detail of an S or the strength of a man's jawline. It's ridiculous and fun and a little sad. What we know right now is simply this, Christopher Nolan was reported to be mentoring the Superman franchise, Goyer is writing it, Jonah Nolan may be involved somehow as well. It has been reported to be based on MoS and to include Lex and Brainiac. Everything else is conjecture. Everything else is our own hype. Our own arguments that existed here well before any of this started and will exist well past. Perhaps we need to separate our petty little fanboy disputes from the movie for once. Pre-Crisis or Post Crisis, it's still the big blue and I'll be sitting in the theaters if this news proves to be more than rumor and I'll forget about all my little opinions and enjoy the movie. Sure I'll ***** afterwards but chances are I'll ***** with a smile on my face.

Yeah it is great that this is the foundation of which they will build upon.

Thats waht I keep telling people he doesn't find out who he is until after he becomes Superman. He was powered down in the MOS series and for good reason he had god like powers prior but hes still very powerful, I hope people don't worry about this.

I admit we all jump to conclusions on here from one time to another and it can cause debate (which is good) but when the slanging matches start thats when it gets annoying.

 

[Webhead2006]

Please provide a link to that quote.

As to my opinion who created the character..... whether that's really a quote from Byrne or not ... Superman was invented by Seigel and Shuster but many hands were involved into making him the character we know today ... including the George Reeve's series. Kryptonite was an invention of the radio show to give the actor a short vacation. The name 'Jor-el' originally appeared as 'Jor-L' and was the invention of novelist George Lothar. Jonathan and Martha didn't have names until much later (and the first names to appear were Eben and Sara - taken from the George Lothar novel... names the George Reeves series adopted) and Martha was 'Mary'. Jimmy Olsen was not an invention of S & S. Lois, under the two creators, was originally a gossip columnist.



Clark being a disguise and Superman the real personality is just not accurate to what Byrne did. Both personalities were the 'real' person. It's just that Clark wasn't a milksop anymore. It just didn't make sense for the identity he spends 75 percent of his time as would be a pose. Clark was still a quiet guy (bland as you put it) and Superman was still out there at the speed of light doing his thing.

... and before you go there... Byrne made Clark a high school football star as a way of explaining why the people around him didn't question why he had such a good build. He even had him keep weights in his apartment. As most of you know, being a High School football star is pretty meaningless after high school.



Where do I start to respond to that? First ... most of that paragraph is only your opinion. I hold a different one... I think the 1930 and 1950's versions of Krypton were juvenile and completely unbelievable. From a believability of concept and just an overall design ... I find Byrne's Krypton to be the more believable. It's based on a lot of thought and not just what bizarre concepts can we come up with. Byrne spent a lot of time asking himself questions and finding answers to things like how could a baby survive a many light year journey wrapped in blankets and shoved into the cockpit of a rocket. Answer? He couldn't... so the concepts had to be revamped... which led to a different understanding of what Krypton was. (Byrne also said that Donner's cold looking Krypton was part of his inspiration to go that way).

No one would ever say that Byrne was a writer on a parr with people like Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman. His strong suit was figuring out logical reasons for things like what I posted in the last paragraph. So, if his writing was uneven... well, it's Byrne... what did you expect? But his concepts work. More than I can say for some writers who get more respect. And I'm not referencing Moore or Gaiman with that last statement ... although Gaiman is more about fantasy than hard science.

I didn't hate the prior version of Superman (1938 - 1986). I'm pretty sure that most of us who like what Byrne and Wolfman did don't. It's just about how long can you hold onto concepts that are so outdated that they seem like Buck Rogers serials from the 1950's? (which, coincidentally, they were).

K, I don't begrudge you your affection for the earlier, simpler times but you must understand that, for most of us, we need more depth. To constantly denigrate the Byrne/Wolfman update is to tell us that we're wrong in wanting that.

Very good post man.

 

[BH/HHH]

All Byrne said regarding who created Superman was that his first experience of Superman was the episode Superman and the lighthouse (which he didnt even watch when he saw it in the TV guide). To him that was when he discovered the MOS, its in his foreword in the MOS graphic novel.

 

[The Democrat]

Yeah it is great that this is the foundation of which they will build upon.

Thats waht I keep telling people he doesn't find out who he is until after he becomes Superman. He was powered down in the MOS series and for good reason he had god like powers prior but hes still very powerful, I hope people don't worry about this.

I admit we all jump to conclusions on here from one time to another and it can cause debate (which is good) but when the slanging matches start thats when it gets annoying.

I honestly can't remember if thats how it went in MoS I have my trade laying around somewhere but I'm having one of those Sunday's where my efforts are thwarted by lethargy. That is how I remember it and personally that is how I prefer it.

Fanboys will worry about it. Fanboys worry about everything. Some will want him to move planets, some will want him to struggle to lift a car over his head. The truth is simply that. My only hope is that they will remember that there is a reason they haven't been hired to do this in the first place.

 

[GL's Light]

I wouldn't read too much into the Byrne reference at this point. It could just mean that they're using elements of the modern comics that Byrne introduced (like the corporate Luthor, the Kents both still being alive, and a non-nerdy Clark). It doesn't mean the film will necessarily be derived from Byrne's six-issue Man of Steel limited series to any greater degree than that.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

I wouldn't read too much into the Byrne reference at this point. It could just mean that they're using elements of the modern comics that Byrne introduced (like the corporate Luthor, the Kents both still being alive, and a non-nerdy Clark). It doesn't mean the film will necessarily be derived from Byrne's six-issue Man of Steel limited series to any greater degree than that.

How do we know the Byrne's part of the info wasn't just a deduction by the source anyways?

 

[raybia]

It could just be a coincidence that the title of the new movie is the same as Byrne's miniseries and it could be a coincidence that Byrne's name was even mentioned in the first place.

At the same time it would make sense to use Byrne's mini-series as part of the foundation for the new movie because I remember DC wanting to revamp Superman at that time and hired Byrne with him mentioning that his new take was a "going back to the basics" approach with him removing all of the barnacles that had attached themselves to the Superman mythos which is what the movie series is going to have to do as well.

Also the TAS used many of Byrne's elements as well. I always thought that a new Superman movie should essentially be a live action TAS so hopefully Nolan and Col. will also look at that series.

 

[hippie_hunter]

K, you're very much a silver age fan and I get that but Byrne's reinvention was actually to strip the concepts down and get back to the basics of what made the character appealing in the first place. If you go back and re-read MOS and Byrne's run on the character after that, you'll find that he kept pretty true to the original concept while still updating parts of it. It's his Krypton that was the huge departure .. and I, among many here, love it along with Marv Wolfman's reinvention of Lex Luthor.

There are so many scenes in that run that remind me of many earlier approaches to the character. There are scenes that even call to mind the George Reeve's series.

You've got to take off your Byrne-hating glasses and re-read his run without that jaundiced eye. You'll find that Byrne is as much a fan of what went before as you are.

I like what Byrne has done, but I have to say that for the most part Byrne's Krypton sucked. Birthing matrixes, Clone Wars, an emotionally dead society, etc. is just plain awful.

 

[raybia]

I like what Byrne has done, but I have to say that for the most part Byrne's Krypton sucked. Birthing matrixes, Clone Wars, an emotionally dead society, etc. is just plain awful.

Are you kidding?! You just named 3 themes of half of the movies made in Hollywood over that past 15 years. They owe Byrne some royalties!

 

[TheLongestDay]

Are you kidding?! You just named 3 themes of half of the movie made in Hollywood over that past 15 years. They owe Byrne some royalties!

lol! The Matrix,Star wars:Clone Wars and Equilibrium spring to mind

 

[raybia]

Seriously though, I think what Byrne was trying to do was add more of a sci-fi element to Superman or better yet he recognized that the character and mythos of Superman was originally grounded in "Sci-fi" just like Nolan recognized that Batman was originally grounded in "reality" so hopefully this is what Nolan and Co. has in mind.

Wow, who would have thought that Nolan would be in this position!? If he suceeds, Nolan will probably be made the new President of the DC movies division.

 

[Kurosawa]

Please provide a link to that quote.

It's in an article written by Byrne in the back of Man of Steel #1.

As to my opinion who created the character..... whether that's really a quote from Byrne or not ... Superman was invented by Seigel and Shuster but many hands were involved into making him the character we know today ... including the George Reeve's series. Kryptonite was an invention of the radio show to give the actor a short vacation. The name 'Jor-el' originally appeared as 'Jor-L' and was the invention of novelist George Lothar. Jonathan and Martha didn't have names until much later (and the first names to appear were Eben and Sara - taken from the George Lothar novel... names the George Reeves series adopted) and Martha was 'Mary'. Jimmy Olsen was not an invention of S & S. Lois, under the two creators, was originally a gossip columnist.

Kryptonite was created by Siegel as "K-Metal", rejected by National, then used in the radio show. The name Jor-L was created by Siegel and was in the 1939 newspaper strips. The Jonathan and Martha names were added later, but Siegel named Ma Kent as Mary in 1939. They also created Jimmy Olsen, although no last name was given to him until later. Lois was originally writing "sob stories" so who knows if it was gossip columns or advise columns or what. But she quickly shifted to actual reporting in those first few Action issues.

Clark being a disguise and Superman the real personality is just not accurate to what Byrne did. Both personalities were the 'real' person. It's just that Clark wasn't a milksop anymore. It just didn't make sense for the identity he spends 75 percent of his time as would be a pose. Clark was still a quiet guy (bland as you put it) and Superman was still out there at the speed of light doing his thing.

... and before you go there... Byrne made Clark a high school football star as a way of explaining why the people around him didn't question why he had such a good build. He even had him keep weights in his apartment. As most of you know, being a High School football star is pretty meaningless after high school.

It's still a COMPLETE betrayal of what Siegel and Shuster meant for Clark to be and represent. And Clark/Superman was not drawn as a roided up mutant by them either.

Where do I start to respond to that? First ... most of that paragraph is only your opinion. I hold a different one... I think the 1930 and 1950's versions of Krypton were juvenile and completely unbelievable. From a believability of concept and just an overall design ... I find Byrne's Krypton to be the more believable. It's based on a lot of thought and not just what bizarre concepts can we come up with. Byrne spent a lot of time asking himself questions and finding answers to things like how could a baby survive a many light year journey wrapped in blankets and shoved into the cockpit of a rocket. Answer? He couldn't... so the concepts had to be revamped... which led to a different understanding of what Krypton was. (Byrne also said that Donner's cold looking Krypton was part of his inspiration to go that way).

Typical snobbishness. It kills me that people who read fantasy and comics are so ashamed of them. You don't see unrealistic elements of the Iliad or the Odyssey or even the Torah or the Bible being changed just because they are "unrealistic". Superman is mythology. I have no interest and in fact total disdain for "realism" in superhero comics.

No one would ever say that Byrne was a writer on a parr with people like Alan Moore or Neil Gaiman. His strong suit was figuring out logical reasons for things like what I posted in the last paragraph. So, if his writing was uneven... well, it's Byrne... what did you expect? But his concepts work. More than I can say for some writers who get more respect. And I'm not referencing Moore or Gaiman with that last statement ... although Gaiman is more about fantasy than hard science.

I didn't hate the prior version of Superman (1938 - 1986). I'm pretty sure that most of us who like what Byrne and Wolfman did don't. It's just about how long can you hold onto concepts that are so outdated that they seem like Buck Rogers serials from the 1950's? (which, coincidentally, they were).

K, I don't begrudge you your affection for the earlier, simpler times but you must understand that, for most of us, we need more depth. To constantly denigrate the Byrne/Wolfman update is to tell us that we're wrong in wanting that.

He's not as good a writer as Maggin or Bates either. Superman does not need to be about hard science or sci-fi. I don't want to get bored to tears reading Superman comics like it's some Asimov crap. It kills me that people who read comics are so ashamed of them. The concepts are hardly outdated or unbelievable until an actual alien crashes on Earth and starts flying around fighting crime, and if they have TK/Psionic powers instead of physical powers like Byrne's Superman did then I'll admit Siegel and Shusters explanation was wrong. And I'm not holding my breath on that because it's all PRETEND.

 

[raybia]

It's in an article written by Byrne in the back of Man of Steel #1.



Kryptonite was created by Siegel as "K-Metal", rejected by National, then used in the radio show. The name Jor-L was created by Siegel and was in the 1939 newspaper strips. The Jonathan and Martha names were added later, but Siegel named Ma Kent as Mary in 1939. They also created Jimmy Olsen, although no last name was given to him until later. Lois was originally writing "sob stories" so who knows if it was gossip columns or advise columns or what. But she quickly shifted to actual reporting in those first few Action issues.



It's still a COMPLETE betrayal of what Siegel and Shuster meant for Clark to be and represent. And Clark/Superman was not drawn as a roided up mutant by them either.



Typical snobbishness. It kills me that people who read fantasy and comics are so ashamed of them. You don't see unrealistic elements of the Iliad or the Odyssey or even the Torah or the Bible being changed just because they are out there. Superman is mythology. I have no interest and in fact total disdain for "realism" in superhero comics.



He's not as good a writer as Maggin or Bates either. Superman does not need to be about hard science or sci-fi. I don't want to get bored to tears reading Superman comics like it's some Asimov crap. It kills me that people who read comics are so ashamed of them. The concepts are hardly outdated or unbelievable until an actual alien crashes on Earth and starts flying around fighting crime. And I'm not holding my breath on that because it's all PRETEND.

Great rebuttal. I personally would like to see the new movie grounded in "sci-fi" but agree with you that I don't want to see it go the Asimov route.

The story aspect should be treated as mythology in the best traditions of the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, etc.

 

[Crook]

Great rebuttal. I personally would like to see the new movie grounded in "sci-fi" but agree with you that I don't want to see it go the Asimov route.

What is the "Asimov" route, precisely?

 

[raybia]

What is the "Asimov" route, precisely?

here is a link about him. Ironically, he looks like Clark Kent!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

Don't get me wrong. The guy is a master of Sci-fi.

I just think he is a little too cerebral for what I want in a Superman movie.

 

[raybia]

double post

 

[Crook]

Heh, no I know exactly who Asimov is. "The Last Question" is my most beloved short story. I was just wondering what the reference to him meant.

In regards to Krypton, which as Sci-Fi as it gets, I don't see any fault in channeling Isaac's sensibilities.

 

[Kurosawa]

Brilliant guy, but his writing is about as exciting as watching paint dry. Superman is based in pulp mythology, Hebrew legend, and Siegel and Shusters personal lives. Realistically depicted sci-fi does not work for it.

 

[raybia]

Heh, no I know exactly who Asimov is. "The Last Question" is my most beloved short story. I was just wondering what the reference to him meant.

In regards to Krypton, which as Sci-Fi as it gets, I don't see any fault in channeling Isaac's sensibilities.

Thats where it would be a perfect fit. I would be like how the biblical sensibilities of the Ark of the Covenant where in relation to Indiana Jones.

In fact, I'm hoping the movie will be more or less in the same,thematically, as "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

 

[LightningFlash]

Equilibrium

I love that movie.

Nothing to do with Superman, but oh well, haha.