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

[Daybreak_st]

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 ...

Yes agreed. I also feel like too many people are focused on looking back at what's come before, whether its' "let's make it like bryne" or "it needs to go back to 1938" or whatever. This notion that the only way the character can work is to go backwards. For any character to survive and thrive the real need is to move forward. Look at worked in the previous incarnations, i mean he has over 70 years of history but don't jettison something b/c "oh i hate byrne i'll never use anything from his era" or "oh i hate pre-crisis superman so i'll never use anything from that era" that's just juvenile, selfish and silly.

Superman is an amalagam of various writers from different time periods, for the past 70+ years. Take a good look at what's worked and what hasn't worked. Look at the best incarnation of the characters. And then move them forward. Don't retroactively make a new film but force it re-create something that is dated and old, that's why Superman Returns failed. The movie needs to find what will work best on film and serve to rejuventate the franchise and people's overall interests in Superman.

If you look at Nolan's approach to Batman you'll see he chose this approach. Both in Begins with Bruce Wayne, and the Dark Knight with the Joker, he heavily referenced teh first appearance of the Joker, in his use of teh media, back then in the comic he used teh Radio to annouce his murders/crimes, in the film he used television etc. Use what works, and move the characters forward not backwards.

It's also the way Donner approached Superman the Movie. At that time in the comic Clark was actually working for tv station. Also as stated Krypton looked nothing like it did in the movie. Donner wanted to approach it with a seriousness to it and didn't feel the Flash Gordon esque Kryton would work so he changed it and look how well that turned out, now the comics even mimic it. The point is if they draw from the rich history but rather than slavishly trying to put Bryne's vision on the screen or do it exactly how Seigel and shuster would have, but rather use some insight and ingenuity to move the character forward they might have surprising sucess.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I would've said something about this topic but SHH ate my response (note: always clipboard before post) and I have no urge to post it again. Which isn't even necessary because everything has already been said. Pre-Crisis hardliner like myself won't change their opinion and post-crisis disciples will keep on screaming "turtleboy". I just hope Nolan is wise enough not to give us a post-crisis Superman, he should just make a great movie which will win over the haters. He didn't make a Frank Miller Batman when everyone (yes, welcome to the early 00s) thought that Batman the more darker, the more violent, the better.

 

[Kurosawa]

I never liked the crystal castles Krypton at all. The shame is they pulled off the right look for Krypton a few years later in the Flash Gordon movie. Maybe they were afraid of it looking similar.

 

[Kurosawa]

I would've said something about this topic but SHH ate my response (note: always clipboard before post) and I have no urge to post it again. Which isn't even necessary because everything has already been said. Pre-Crisis hardliner like myself won't change their opinion and post-crisis disciples will keep on screaming "turtleboy". I just hope Nolan is wise enough not to give us a post-crisis Superman, he should just make a great movie which will win over the haters. He didn't make a Frank Miller Batman when everyone (yes, welcome to the early 00s) thought that Batman the more darker, the more violent, the better.

Agree completely. And Nolan is a smart guy and I think he will make the right decisions.

 

[SuperFerret]

I'm going to just flat out state my opinion and then leave. Superman is one of the many characters that have gotten better with age. Aside from a few burps here and there, the Superman we have today is a FAR better character than he was when he was created. The modern Superman is what needs to be in the new movie.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

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.

Oh I wouldn't want anything like that. My take is Clark hides his powers because the Kents are afraid the government would take him away or people would fear him.

To me, being nearly godlike and having to pretend to be human severely complicates things. It makes any sortof competition against humans impossible. He has to fake having human level abilities to play football, otherwise it's unfair or the other players could get hurt. It even affects his job, really.

With no outlet to build confidence, he becomes the mild mannered guy we know. Being Superman gives him purpose and gives him something to do that challenges him in ways he couldn't have been challenged before.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

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?

Thats all fine and dandy to not agree.

Its only when you say something that amounts to "my opinion is MORE valid than yours, and here is WHY..." that it looks ugly.

 

[Kurosawa]

I'm going to just flat out state my opinion and then leave. Superman is one of the many characters that have gotten better with age. Aside from a few burps here and there, the Superman we have today is a FAR better character than he was when he was created. The modern Superman is what needs to be in the new movie.

Do you mean the modern Superman that is currently appearing in DC Comics?

Thats all fine and dandy to not agree.

Its only when you say something that amounts to "my opinion is MORE valid than yours, and here is WHY..." that it looks ugly.

And I have done that where? All I have done is state my opinion and back it up with facts from the comics themselves, the creators themselves and used quotes and comments from some of comics best writers to support my position. As I said, I have nothing against anyone who likes Byrne's character on a personal level, I just disagree with them on Superman. I feel and have always felt that Batman flourishes because they took him back to his core concepts and those are what worked in the first place. I feel Superman worked for as long as it did-because for the first 50 years of his existence he never had the ups and downs that Batman had-because they stuck with the core concepts and then added to them. Byrne's character turned those concepts completely around. It's like making Peter Parker a rich kid with a 1.5 GPA or Wolverine a pacifist or Cyclops a party boy.

When they went away from the core with Batman, doing sci-fi stories, the book almost canceled. After the brief boom from the TV series, the campiness that was in the Batman comics at the time almost got them canceled again. It was going back to the ideas of the Bill Finger/Jerry Robinson/Bob Kane original that saved Batman and has made him the #1 property DC owns. Since they have strayed from Siegel and Shusters intentions with Superman, the character has lost relevance, has been killed, put into absurd new costumes, and several other sales gimmicks or varying quality but the main thing is the character needs a gimmick to sell at all because they have strayed too far from the core concepts. They only worked for 50 YEARS.

 

[The Batman]

Yes agreed. I also feel like too many people are focused on looking back at what's come before, whether its' "let's make it like bryne" or "it needs to go back to 1938" or whatever. This notion that the only way the character can work is to go backwards. For any character to survive and thrive the real need is to move forward. Look at worked in the previous incarnations, i mean he has over 70 years of history but don't jettison something b/c "oh i hate byrne i'll never use anything from his era" or "oh i hate pre-crisis superman so i'll never use anything from that era" that's just juvenile, selfish and silly.

Superman is an amalagam of various writers from different time periods, for the past 70+ years. Take a good look at what's worked and what hasn't worked. Look at the best incarnation of the characters. And then move them forward. Don't retroactively make a new film but force it re-create something that is dated and old, that's why Superman Returns failed. The movie needs to find what will work best on film and serve to rejuventate the franchise and people's overall interests in Superman.

If you look at Nolan's approach to Batman you'll see he chose this approach. Both in Begins with Bruce Wayne, and the Dark Knight with the Joker, he heavily referenced teh first appearance of the Joker, in his use of teh media, back then in the comic he used teh Radio to annouce his murders/crimes, in the film he used television etc. Use what works, and move the characters forward not backwards.

It's also the way Donner approached Superman the Movie. At that time in the comic Clark was actually working for tv station. Also as stated Krypton looked nothing like it did in the movie. Donner wanted to approach it with a seriousness to it and didn't feel the Flash Gordon esque Kryton would work so he changed it and look how well that turned out, now the comics even mimic it. The point is if they draw from the rich history but rather than slavishly trying to put Bryne's vision on the screen or do it exactly how Seigel and shuster would have, but rather use some insight and ingenuity to move the character forward they might have surprising sucess.

Agreed. I truly think that the movie is the best chance of seeing a superman that can be interesting for a 21st century audience. WB should do what Waid did on Birthright. BR was such a good book because it felt like superman...just updated for the 21st century.

Bryne's superman is no longer modern or relevant, and its been proven not to work. And its interesting how shows based on pre crisis dont fare so well either. STAS was never as popular as BTAS, and most people wont even cite it as THE definitive Superman. Lois and Clark came and went, and smallville's mainly popular with teenage girls and comic fans...and after its ended, itll be forgotten as well.

 

[Kurosawa]

Agreed. I truly think that the movie is the best chance of seeing a superman that can be interesting for a 21st century audience. WB should do what Waid did on Birthright. BR was such a good book because it felt like superman...just updated for the 21st century.

Bryne's superman is no longer modern or relevant, and its been proven not to work. And its interesting how shows based on pre crisis dont fare so well either. STAS was never as popular as BTAS, and most people wont even cite it as THE definitive Superman. Lois and Clark came and went, and smallville's mainly popular with teenage girls and comic fans...and after its ended, itll be forgotten as well.

I assume you meant Post-Crisis fare. None of those shows were ever huge because so much of the core concept was lost. Well that and a lot of other reasons. At least Smallville did explore the Lex/Superman relationship in a way that was somewhat close to the real thing.

 

[SuperFerret]

Do you mean the modern Superman that is currently appearing in DC Comics?

Yes.


Turning me into a liar by making me respond to a question when I said I'd leave.

 

[Kurosawa]

Yes.


Turning me into a liar by making me respond to a question when I said I'd leave.

Well the Superman of today is very much a mix of the Pre and Post Crisis versions. I think DC does realize they have divided their fans and that it hurts them. His costume is made from the blankets, he was Superboy, he and Lex were once friends, Metropolis Clark is still very much a disguise, etc but they also kept Post-Crisis elements like the marriage (which I have always supported) and Lexcorp (which I've learned to live with), so if they return some of Superman's self-confidence and leadership abilities they might get him back where he belongs and make everybody happy. I hope they do in the comics and I've got to think a filmmaker as smart as Nolan will look through Superman's entire history and come up with a take that plays to all his strengths and stays away from the weaknesses. Until Nolan lets me down I say trust him.

 

[SuperFerret]

I still don't like him being Superboy first. Nor him and Lex being friends.

 

[The Batman]

I assume you meant Post-Crisis fare. None of those shows were ever huge because so much of the core concept was lost. Well that and a lot of other reasons. At least Smallville did explore the Lex/Superman relationship in a way that was somewhat close to the real thing.

Indeed I did. And one thing I'll say for Smallville is that it does incorporate a lot of elements from Superman's entire history.

 

[KaptainKrypton]

Either version of pre-crisis or post-crisis can work with the right storytelling. My favorite Superman stories of all time are still Alan Moore's pair of books to finish up the run before Byrne took over and de-powered Supes. As we've seen time and time again, though, the wrong writer can take either version and botch it (yes, I'm looking at you, Chuck Austen). I love that there are so many things to cull from, though. Seeing as it is a movie, we'll likely be getting something in line with what Goyer is all about, so...

 

[Daybreak_st]

Agreed. I truly think that the movie is the best chance of seeing a superman that can be interesting for a 21st century audience. WB should do what Waid did on Birthright. BR was such a good book because it felt like superman...just updated for the 21st century.

Bryne's superman is no longer modern or relevant, and its been proven not to work. And its interesting how shows based on pre crisis dont fare so well either. STAS was never as popular as BTAS, and most people wont even cite it as THE definitive Superman. Lois and Clark came and went, and smallville's mainly popular with teenage girls and comic fans...and after its ended, itll be forgotten as well.

I agree i think Birthright is a much better model to base a new film off of, but again they should draw from all of his history, i just feel like at this point Birthright is the best overall origin type story that draws from his history and uses what works best. I've enjoyed the various live action versions for different reasons. I loved the early seasons of Lois and Clark b/c it fleshed out their characters well, gave them real personality, and allowed their romance to grow organically. I'd love to see some things drawn from that version.

Also i enjoy smallville and the fact that they've done a solid job with his villains from the comic, Brainiac was particularly well done and while it drew from verious versions they developed him into something all their own. That's how i hope they approach the new film. Pull what works but move forward instead of slavishly trying to render something exactly from a specific era from the comics.

In recently reading the actual Bryne reboot i wasn't really impressed. I especially hate Lex. People should realize that the lex bryne introduced and the one that appeared in Lois and Clark and STAS only had Lexcorp in common. The character has evolved well and is currently well handled especially in SMallvillle (best live action luthor yet). But Byrne's Luthor was the Kingpin. He was fat, had no redeamable qualities, he slept with Perry's wife alice before they were married while she thought perry was missing in action overseas, he spanked a 15 year old lois after she broke into his place to steal evidence, and then watched a video of her being stripped searched...he was simply and awful character. If anything the Ruby spears lex may have had the most in common with this guy not quite sure. My the excellent lex beign portrayed by Paul Cornell in ACtion comics or the lex in Up, Up, and Away who was in a word Awesome! has nothing in common with Bryne's luthor except for his trust fund.

I will say the one thing i thought his reboot did well was make the story feel very grounded, it was obvious he drew from the films. His superman did evoke christopher reeve in his intereaction with common people. Also he had Superman fighting terrorists and even involved in destroying their home country's military.

Also i enjoy the supporting cast, particulary cat grant. I didn't like his lois however. He did a good job of fleshing out these supporting characters and their lives and gave clark some backstory between leaving kansas and becoming superman, i've always enjoyed the idea of him traveling the world. So this era certainly has some pluses, but as we've noted the good ideas continue to exist, for example he was travling the world in Birthright and in pretty much ever other incarnation that come sense. Bad ideas like Lex Luthor kingpin have been replaced with vastly more interesting super genius lex who happens to also run lexcorp.

I still don't like him being Superboy first. Nor him and Lex being friends.

Superboy adds nothing to Superman. He serves the legion of Superheroes and that's it. He helps them sell comics and exist but they don't help Superman in any way. I think the smallville approach about him doing heroic things as a teen without a costume is the most organic approach to his growth as a hero. Seigel and Shuster didn't originally envision Superboy anyway.

Indeed I did. And one thing I'll say for Smallville is that it does incorporate a lot of elements from Superman's entire history.

Agreed, the way they've approached smallville in drawing from his rich history is how the movie should be approached.

 

[The Question]

Yes and no, I think. There are a lot of things Man of Steel got right, and some it got wrong. I didn't like it's depiction of Krypton's culture (although I love the aesthetic, and I hope that stays), and Lex's personality was too bland and one dimensionally evil. Krypton should be a flawed society, why else would one of it's best scientists be ignored when he says that the planet is doomed, but not so obviously broken, almost to the point of parody. As for Lex... Lex being rich and woning a company makes sense. If he's really that smart, and I'm talking tactically/strategically here, and if he's really going to pose that big a threat to Superman, then it would make more sense that his subversive, reshape the world villainy was more behind the scenes, and he also did legitimate things with his intelligence to have resources and stave off suspicion. That being said, he should be more than a corrupt CEO. His plans should be much more global, his philosophy more akin to a futurist and Nietzschean humanist with a grand vision for himself and the world and an inherent desire to thumb his nose and and smashing the system, while using it's flaws to his advantage. And he should be a scientist, first and foremost. His company should be an extension of his being a scientist.

So what do you call wearing glasses when you don't need to? A fashion statement?

What would you call wearing blue tights and a cape when you don't need to?

 

[Kurosawa]

Yes and no, I think. There are a lot of things Man of Steel got right, and some it got wrong. I didn't like it's depiction of Krypton's culture (although I love the aesthetic, and I hope that stays), and Lex's personality was too bland and one dimensionally evil. Krypton should be a flawed society, why else would one of it's best scientists be ignored when he says that the planet is doomed, but not so obviously broken, almost to the point of parody. As for Lex... Lex being rich and woning a company makes sense. If he's really that smart, and I'm talking tactically/strategically here, and if he's really going to pose that big a threat to Superman, then it would make more sense that his subversive, reshape the world villainy was more behind the scenes, and he also did legitimate things with his intelligence to have resources and stave off suspicion. That being said, he should be more than a corrupt CEO. His plans should be much more global, his philosophy more akin to a futurist and Nietzschean humanist with a grand vision for himself and the world and an inherent desire to thumb his nose and and smashing the system, while using it's flaws to his advantage. And he should be a scientist, first and foremost. His company should be an extension of his being a scientist.

Well as I've said before I think the theft of Kandor played a bigger role in the Science Council's decision to not listen to Jor-El than is usually depicted. When it was stolen a new government had to be formed and it was probably more reactionary than the Kandor government. Also there may have been some degree of anger towards the House of El as Kryptonopolis was built by one of Superman's ancestors and they never made it a secret that they wanted the capitol moved there.

 

[The Question]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.

Well as I've said before I think the theft of Kandor played a bigger role in the Science Council's decision to not listen to Jor-El than is usually depicted. When it was stolen a new government had to be formed and it was probably more reactionary than the Kandor government. Also there may have been some degree of anger towards the House of El as Kryptonopolis was built by one of Superman's ancestors and they never made it a secret that they wanted the capitol moved there.

I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

 

[batman44]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.

Yes

 

[SuperDaniel]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.

Bravo!!!!

 

[SuperMike335!!]

So, this thread has returned to the old "Is it Clark or Superman that's the disguise?" debate.

I hate this debate. I really really do. Largely because it doesn't make much sense to me, and runs counter to everything I've ever learned about literature, something I've spend the last five or six years of my life studying quite a bit.

Superman is Clark Kent. Clark Kent is Superman. They're the same guy. And as the name Superman is a more recent addition to his life and he grew up with the name Clark Kent, then in terms of knowing what to call him you can say that he's Clark Kent. When he's at work, in the suit and the glasses, does he hide things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. When he's in the costume, saving people and working with the Justice League, is he hiding things from the people around him to keep up his lifestyle? Yes. Are any of the opinions, desires, or interests he expresses, or any of the relationships he forges, thus a lie? Of course not. In either case, does he affect his posture, voice, and the way he approaches and deals with people for the sake of practicality? Yes. Does that mean that he's not being true to himself in either case? Not really, it just means that he's being pragmatic, or doing what he's comfortable doing under certain circumstances. I'm sure when he's with the Justice League, he revels in the chance to be authoritative and take charge, and when he's at work, he revels in the chance to take a break from being authoritative and taking charge.

They're both him. He's not two people, or three. He's one guy who wants to do certain things with his life and wants to be a certain way and express certain things when doing those things, and those things only function when he keeps them separate. In essence, he's pretty much the same as most people, he just has much bigger responsibilities. The idea that he's two people, that there's a real Superman and a fake Clark or vice versa... it's poetic, and it's a nice shorthand for describing the character, but it's simplistic and it's not how people work. Especially not how well written fictional people should work.

I feel the same way about Batman's whole "Bruce Wayne is the mask/Bruce Wayne died the same night as his parents" thing. It's a poetic way of describing him, but that's all it is. Poetic. A full description of his character would be infinitely more complex and nuanced.

Do you mind if people quote you on this next time the "real person" argument comes up?

Well said.

I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

That is interesting. There should be some reason why a civilization on their level was still only a class one, and not even a class 2 yet. By their technology (not to mention genetics) they should have been a level 3 long ago.

 

[The Question]

Do you mind if people quote you on this next time the "real person" argument comes up?

Of course not. It would feed my ego like human sacrifice and blood orgies feed a Lovercraftain god of insanity.

That is interesting. There should be some reason why a civilization on their level was still only a class one, and not even a class 2 yet. By their technology (not to mention genetics) they should have been a level 3 long ago.

It just makes the most sense to me. Major societal flaws, but not to the point of being a caricature. I think it would make the most sense if they had had a big intergalactic war with another race in the past, which they won but only barely, leading to several conflicting schools of thought in regards to Kryptonain supremacy and their inherent racial and cultural guilt for whatever atrocities their ancestors might have committed, which, combined with the negative attitude nearby species might have towards them and the Kryptonian government playing up jingoism for public support, would lead to a very arrogant and isolationist society, but one that still functions like a society should, unlike Byrne's version. It also seems like the kind of place where the government would laugh off their smartest scientist just because he suggests that there's something coming that they can't fix, and where a person like Zod can become a powerful figure in the military.

 

[The Sage]

I always kind of liked the idea that Krypton's downfall was caused by a combination of pride and xenophobia. They saw themselves as the greatest civilization ever, and thus could not imagine that they could ever fall even to natural disaster, and due to whatever bad experiences they'd had with interplanetary contact in the past, the idea of going out into space was a cultural taboo even though they had the technology.

I did too. It's one of the reasons I prefer a more colorful and idyllic looking Krypton. It makes its destruction all the more tragic and it helps as a reminder to Superman about not letting his power make him arrogant.

 

[The Batman]

I find it funny that the same people who agree with Question are the same people who would agree with "Clark Kent is who I am, Superman is what I can do"