Does the movie absolutely have to be based on Man of Steel/post crisis?

[Young Superman]

I think the film should be set in modern day, but be based on the Golden Age Superman as far as Clark Kent/Superman's personality is concerned. A Meek, Mild-Mannered reporter as Clark Kent and a social crusader, champion of the oppressed as Superman. I agree Lex should be combination corrupt businessman/scientist/inventor. IMO the three things John Byrne got right were:

1. Making Kal-El/Superman the last Kryptonian again.
2. corrupt businessman Lex.
3. Both the Kent being alive when Clark is Superman.

 

[SuperFerret]

Clark has to wear glasses, because he's not wearing a mask when he's Superman.

Which he does to give the public more trust in his heroic side and to prevent the complications of his heroic side from bleeding into his normal guy side.

If you really want to grasp at straws, the glasses and the \S/ are the disguises. Clark Kent is the guy who wears them.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

This site is mostly made of of people who know very little about comics and those who do follow comics skew much more towards stuff from the last 20 years or so. There is actually a strong amount of disdain towards anyone who defends earlier comics or is a fan of them.

You seem to be hateful of anyone who liked anything that Byrne did.

The reason you get "disdain" in replies is because when you "defend" Pre-Crisis, you do so by INSULTING Post Crisis fans.

You call yourself a Pre-Crisis Purist at the same time.

Because that does not sound self-righteous.

 

[JAK®]

Clark Kent is the real man, just not when he is wearing glasses at the Daily Planet.

 

[Manic]

If some writer decides to make Clark Kent some disguise that's an insulting caricature of human behavior, then I ask that they do one thing: Please, for the love of god, don't make Clark hit on Lois. That just makes Superman look like an idiot.

"Hey, Lois. Even though you're clearly enamored with Superman, I'm going to unsuccessfully try to ask you out several times while I'm using this false personality as Clark Kent. Oh, woe is me!" What kind of ****ing results do you want, Supes? Do you want Lois to fall madly in love with you while you're pretending to be clumsy and bashful all the time? Do you really think a relationship like that would work in the end, with you putting on an elaborate act the entire time you're dating her?

 

[JAK®]

If some writer decides to make Clark Kent some disguise that's an insulting caricature of human behavior, then I ask that they do one thing: Please, for the love of god, don't make Clark hit on Lois. That just makes Superman look like an idiot.

"Hey, Lois. Even though you're clearly enamored with Superman, I'm going to unsuccessfully try to ask you out several times while I'm using this false personality as Clark Kent. Oh, woe is me!" What kind of ****ing results do you want, Supes? Do you want Lois to fall madly in love with you while you're pretending to be clumsy and bashful all the time? Do you really think a relationship like that would work in the end, with you putting on an elaborate act the entire time you're dating her?

Are you even reading my posts. How many times do I have to say that Clark Kent as a disguise is MILD MANNERED, not a bumbling oaf, who has only appeared in the Donner movies and All Star Superman.

 

[The Batman]

I'll consider this flick a disappointment if its based on MOS/Post Crisis. Superman has been broken in the comics for 20 + years. The Filmmakers should show some iniative and modernize the original character.

The only books they should look at, IMO, are All Star Superman, Birthright, and Geoff John's Brainiac arc, in addition to some Siegel/Shuster

 

[maenalus]

My favorite Clark is the wryly demure one from the Fleischer cartoons. It's not him going out of his way to fool people, acting like something he's not. Just opposite in fact. He's just having fun and finding the humor the whole ridiculous situation of hiding his awesome powers from everyone.

Having said that, I plenty enjoy different versions too.

 

[Manic]

Are you even reading my posts. How many times do I have to say that Clark Kent as a disguise is MILD MANNERED, not a bumbling oaf, who has only appeared in the Donner movies and All Star Superman.

That wasn't directed at anyone at all. I was just saying that in general. It's something that bothered the hell out of me in some of the movies.

 

[The Batman]

Are you reading my posts are just skimming? B/c i thought the explaination was pretty clear in my first post. His personality, his likes/dislikes, his sense of humor is all very much an aspect of his upbringing, however the minute he can see a persons DNA or fly, or leave the earth's atmosphere under his own power....yes he's not just your average kansas farm boy anymore. His fundamental view point would change.

Again look at batman. Is he the same kid who left gotham to travel the world or did his 10 year or however long he was gone fundamentally change him and his perspective? Either it did or it didn't.

Clark Kent not only traveled the world like batman, but since his powers emerged began seeing the world in a very unique way, something he can't fully share with anyone. So you think Bruce wayne can grow and change but clark kent with his unique perspective and experience would be nothing more than an average farmboy, or see the world like everyone else?

I think Clark Kent with his parents is very much the person he was raised to be, he'd joke, have fun ect. but a part of him, the part that started to develop with his powers would be a little lonely, knowing that no one else would ever know what it's like to be him. He'd also be facinated with being an alien and what that means. That part is Kal-el. I don't think he'd need to constanly complain etc, but there woudl be something a little tragic about having the most unique vision of the world that no one else could fully understand/ appreciate. And being a human who gains powers vs being a alien, who finds out he's the last of his race would also enhance/inform his experience and viewpoint.

I think that's the part that develops during his late teens early adulthood before superman. It's at that time that he's traveling the world trying to figure what he should do etc. Then i think it's him finding that balance in his two halves that gives him some peace of mind and allows him to emerge as Superman.

The clark kent in metropolis is basically letting the geek side out, enjoying his friends etc but with a mild mannered toned down persona. The smallville clark is the same person but more outgoing etc.

Kal-el is the alien part of Clark, but especially after he finds some answers to his questions, learns about krypton, finds the fortress etc. The fortress allows him to find out more about his heritage, his people, that his dad was a scientist, etc. The fortress let's him explore/embrace a side of himself that began to emerge as a teen but he never understood.

Superman is clark as his heroic best once he's come to terms with Kal-el. It's him using all of his kryptonian gifts in the service of mankind. But it's also him putting on his "best" forward so to speak. Like a cop or fireman, he's not showing his vulnerability, issues etc. It's his "best". Clark let's him have those issues/ vulnerabilites etc.

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...

 

[JAK®]

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...

It's funny because a lot of Superman: The Movie influenced John Byrne's Man of Steel.

 

[The Batman]

It's funny because a lot of Superman: The Movie influenced John Byrne's Man of Steel.

Exactly. Bryne's Superman even looks Reeve-esque. Krypton is cold just like in the movie, to name a few examples.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

One interpretation I have is Clark starts off the real person, a mild mannered, meek person, as a result of Clark living his life hiding his powers from people and having to live as an ordinary human. When he starts helping people and becomes Superman, a hidden side of him is revealed, someone more confident and assertive. But in order to not arouse suspicion, he continues to be the Clark he was growing up. So what was once a genuine personality sortof becomes a disguise.

 

[Kurosawa]

I'm sorry. Are you saying Superman is less of a commercial success because he no longer acts like two entirely different people? Really? That's the reason?

Yes it is a huge part of it. What makes Superman work for so many people is the idea of wish fulfillment, that there is more to them than most people realize and that inside them is the potential for greatness. Without a human, fragile, relatable Clark Kent that is lost. If Clark has women gushing over him, is in great shape, has a perfect family and was a star quarterback and THEN he turns out to have Godlike superpowers, then it is like Brad Pitt winning the lottery. There is nothing for people to relate to and there is no soul, no loss and no pathos. If everything is easy for them then he is boring as a rock.

Superman is less of a commercial success because the trends of the past 25 years have skewed in the favor of the Wolverines and Punishers of the superhero world, and Batman has only really hung on due to his darker nature. Superman is by and far looked at as a way too powerful, unrelatable, ultimately good and perfect god-figure, and that (like Aquaman's stigma of being useless) hurts the character, and is a direct result of the older stories.

That's the pat answer and that is what you always hear. It is because of that lack of insight that they have failed to address the real issues and the real failings of the character, plus they do not want to admit that their changes were wrong. It's easier to slam dead guys whose families are suing them than it is to take Byrne to task for his misdeeds when he can get on the internet and whine about it. And even he can't defend his dumbest ideas like no Superboy (he actually admits that was a mistake), Superman and Clark being raised as brothers, Superman looking like Clark because he imitated the first person he saw (which was supposedly Clark), porno movie with Big Barda, murdering the PZ criminals in cold blood, I could go on and on. At least the Silver Age stories are 50 years old and were written for children, Byrne's crap has no such excuse except his own extreme inadequacies as a creator and writer.

Also everyone here is talking about a bumbling Clark Kent when that wasn't even a part of the Pre-Crisis character. That was an invention of the Donner movies. He's mild-mannered, not an idiot.

Exactly. But so many people think the Donner movies and Pre-Crisis are the same thing. If it was Krypton would have looked like Flash Gordon, Lex would have had real depth, he would have been Superboy, etc.

Exactly. It's a disguise. And he disguises himself not when he is flying around saving people, but when he is interacting with normal people and hiding his powers. So, Clark Kent, at least the one that works at the Daily Planet, is a disguise.

Precisely. And he is in many ways the most interesting about Superman. Take that character away-Clark Kent is basically Woody Allen-and you have a pretty generic character. Byrne turned Superman into all the parodies that had been done of him over the years, which is basically all he knew about the character anyway. He knew what Stan taught him.

 

[JAK®]

One interpretation I have is Clark starts off the real person, a mild mannered, meek person, as a result of Clark living his life hiding his powers from people and having to live as an ordinary human. When he starts helping people and becomes Superman, a hidden side of him is revealed, someone more confident and assertive. But in order to not arouse suspicion, he continues to be the Clark he was growing up. So what was once a genuine personality sortof becomes a disguise.

J.J Abrams' script for Superman Lives had the Kents resent Clark for his powers, believing it was against God. So in that version, Superman didn't think too fondly of his powers at first. Always thought that was an interesting idea, but not for a movie.

 

[Kurosawa]

Nah, I don't like that take. Pa Kent loved his son unconditionally and was always enthusiastic about his powers. He even helped Clark learn how to fly.

 

[batman44]

J.J Abrams' script for Superman Lives had the Kents resent Clark for his powers, believing it was against God. So in that version, Superman didn't think too fondly of his powers at first. Always thought that was an interesting idea, but not for a movie.

Was that JJ's script? I remembrer reading that Clark being afraid of his powers after he beat the crap outta some creep trying to rape his mother then being called a devil which freaked Clark out out at his young age, but his parents being in support of his abilities.

 

[maenalus]

And even he can't defend his dumbest ideas like no Superboy (he actually admits that was a mistake),

Why is Superboy a necessity? Besides just being (to me) dull and boring, Clark having a Superboy career just takes away from the impact on the public being introduced to Superman.

 

[JAK®]

I admit that Superboy is one of the things I don't like about Pre-Crisis.

 

[Kurosawa]

I think the film should be set in modern day, but be based on the Golden Age Superman as far as Clark Kent/Superman's personality is concerned. A Meek, Mild-Mannered reporter as Clark Kent and a social crusader, champion of the oppressed as Superman. I agree Lex should be combination corrupt businessman/scientist/inventor. IMO the three things John Byrne got right were:

1. Making Kal-El/Superman the last Kryptonian again.
2. corrupt businessman Lex.
3. Both the Kent being alive when Clark is Superman.

Last Kryptonian only works if Krypton itself was appealing and his heritage from there is deeply meaningful to him. Corrupt businessman Lex is a Kingpin swipe but can be made to work if he is also a brilliant scientist. It also was not 100% new as Pre-Crisis Lex was also a billionaire, he just hid his wealth with aliases.

You seem to be hateful of anyone who liked anything that Byrne did.

The reason you get "disdain" in replies is because when you "defend" Pre-Crisis, you do so by INSULTING Post Crisis fans.

You call yourself a Pre-Crisis Purist at the same time.

Because that does not sound self-righteous.

I never say anything about the fans except I feel their opinions are wrongheaded and they generally don't know much about Pre-Crisis except what DC has told them. I don't call them asses or anything. But Post-Crisis fans are quick to insult you if you like the older material and feel the original creators visions are important with insulting terms like "nostalgia *****e".

Why is Superboy a necessity? Besides just being (to me) dull and boring, Clark having a Superboy career just takes away from the impact on the public being introduced to Superman.

First of all, I don't see Superboy as 100% essential although I do like the series and I personally would include him because I would want to develop a LOSH spin-off, but it is Byrne himself who admits he made a mistake getting rid of him.

Two things that getting rid of Superboy messed up:
1) In the comics, it ruined the Legion Of Super-Heroes. To make a possible and debatable positive change for Superman they messed up an entire super-team and one of their best-selling and critically acclaimed series. The team has never recovered from that, although they've restored Superboy and (more or less) the original Legion now, and we'll just have to see how that goes.

2) Getting rid of Superboy is what led to the Kents staying alive well into Superman's manhood, but it also never allowed him to leave the nest and grow up. It's fine for Spider-Man to have all these domestic scenes with Aunt May because he has other events in his life to challenge him, but for most of the Post-Crisis Superman's existence he had both parents alive, a wife, friends, and the loss of his home world and birth parents were not important to him. He had it completely easy and had no loss, pain or pathos in his life. There is simply nothing there to relate to. He had a perfect upbringing, a perfect childhood, he was a popular athlete in high school and there he turns out to be a beloved superhero. There is not a single thing to make you actually feel for the character one bit. And he acted like a kid who had his whole life handed to him too, as he lost the Pre-Crisis characters maturity and intelligence, reacting like an impudent child instead when faced with his enemies.

A lot of these mistakes have been fixed and the character is on the right track. The current Superman is not John Byrne's character, and that is a great thing. There is still work to be done and Grounded is a good idea written poorly but there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. All-Star Superman would have never seen the light of day in the 90's, and now it is correctly seen as THE way to portray Superman. Hopefully this trend continues and the brilliance of Elliot S! Maggin's work is reintegrated into the books as well. If I ran DC my first phone call would be to him, actually.

Exactly.

People are forgetting that Clark Kent...isnt normal anymore. He becomes someone else...as we all do when we grow up.

Also, as harsh as it sounds...most people on here DONT know much about Superman's history, as evidenced by the fact that you guys lump donner and pre crisis superman into the same category. I dont remember pre crisis luthor being obsessed with land ...

Talk to any Byrne shipper and they always quote the same things: Krypto, Beppo, Jimmy Olsen Turtle-Boy, etc. And all of that stuff came from Stan. Why did Stan slam Superman like that? BECAUSE DC WAS THE ENEMY. Taking Stan's criticisms of 60's Superman comics as the guide to the character (as Byrne did) would be like a Yankee fan agreeing with a Red Sox fans' critiques of the team and running it in that way.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

I never say anything about the fans except I feel their opinions are wrongheaded and they generally don't know much about Pre-Crisis except what DC has told them. I don't call them asses or anything. But Post-Crisis fans are quick to insult you if you like the older material and feel the original creators visions are important with insulting terms like "nostalgia *****e".

They only call you that AFTER you CALL them wrongheaded.

You tell them it is wrong to have an opinion other than yours, and then you wonder why they get mad at you.

You "JUSTIFY" that in saying it is because of the original creators visions, and then wonder why that looks self-righteous to us.

 

[Kurosawa]

They only call you that AFTER you CALL them wrongheaded.

You tell them it is wrong to have an opinion other than yours, and then you wonder why they get mad at you.

You "JUSTIFY" that in saying it is because of the original creators visions, and then wonder why that looks self-righteous to us.

I could less about you or anyone else on these boards. I care about Superman and I care about Siegel and Shuster and their vision. That's it. If I disagree then I explain why I feel they are wrong and I back it up with facts. If that makes people mad then that is their problem.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

I could less about your or anyone else on these boards. I care about Superman and I care about Siegel and Shuster and their vision. That's it. If I disagree then I explain why I feel they are wrong and I back it up with facts. If that makes people mad then that is their problem.

Well if you do not care about anyone else on these boards, why do you feel the need to preach to them about the Pre-Crisis Superman and insult thier opinions? I mean after all, you could care less about them...

 

[Kurosawa]

Well if you do not care about anyone else on these boards, why do you feel the need to preach to them about the Pre-Crisis Superman and insult thier opinions? I mean after all, you could care less about them...

What I mean by that is it is nothing personal against them, just a disagreement on a topic. I don't mean that just because they believe Superman should be the same guy as Clark or as Supes that they kick puppies or something, just that I think they are wrong. And disagreeing with someone and explaining why you feel you are right is insulting someone since when?

 

[Octoberist]

Fight fight fight fight