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

[batman44]

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"

No I don't.

 

[Kurosawa]

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.



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.

You are right in places and I disagree in others, but he has to be Clark AND Superman for the series to work. If they are the exact same person then Superman is the exact same character as every other superhero. But he's not. And nothing personal at all, but if I'm quoting anyone on the Superman/Clark Kent issue, it will be Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, Quentin Tarantino, etc. I'm pretty sure those guys understand how well written fiction works, and I'm also pretty sure John Byrne is an overrated hack, and it was him and Frank Miller (who clearly hates Superman) who cooked up the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" BS. So I'll take my cues from people like Maggin who wrote Superman for over 10 years or Jerry Siegel who ONLY created the character. Again, nothing personal, but I'll take the opinions of the best of the best and my favorite Superman writer of all time over anyone on an internet message board.

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"

Anything to destroy classic, traditional Superman I guess. These are the same types of people who, before Byrne, would have or did hate Superman. It's basically more deconstructionist crap. Only comics fans are so determined to undermine and destroy that which they claim to love. It's freaking amazing. Batman fans get it so much more than Superman fans that it isn't even funny. It's a big part of why Batman has become God and Superman has become an irrelevant joke. Batman fans understand that the foundation laid down by Finger and Kane is essential for Batman to work. Superman fans-or many of them-seem to regard Siegel and Shuster as nothing but two dead old guys who name is in the credits. Batman is so lucky to not have such a bad schism in his fanbase...not even Spider-Man fans are as divided as Superman fans are IMO. DC clearly knows this and that is why they are trying this hybrid version with classic elements like Superboy and elements Byrne shippers like such as Lexcorp. Except for Morrison who got Superman about 90% right in All-Star Superman, however, there is no one else around that seems up to the task or writing Superman for comics. Certainly JMS is not good enough as Grounded as shown so far. Superman is in bad need of writers who get him.

 

[dru-zod2501]

I've noticed that there's a general consensus that the movie should be based on Byrne's Man of Steel reboot or the post crisis era in general, and the movie's been rumored to be based on it anyway. But I wonder if it's the only valid path.

Does Lex have to be a businessman? Clark the real person/Superman the disguise? Does everyone really believe that Lex as a scientist and not a businessman and Clark as a disguise is outdated and incapable of being used in a modern interpretation?

I don't know anything about basing it on MoS, but in light of all ones that have come before (which you already know many people are going to look at this movie through the prism of the past) the part I highlighted is one of the most logical approaches to take. To date we haven't seen either of those things on the big screen, so it would be the most elementary way to set itself apart.

I personally prefer mad scientist Lex over corporate Lex, and Superman as the real, but it's time to do something different and I do want to see Lexcorp someday.

 

[Kurosawa]

I don't know anything about basing it on MoS, but in light of all ones that have come before (which you already know many people are going to look at this movie through the prism of the past) the part I highlighted is one of the most logical approaches to take. To date we haven't seen either of those things on the big screen, so it would be the most elementary way to set itself apart.

I personally prefer mad scientist Lex over corporate Lex, and Superman as the real, but it's time to do something different and I do want to see Lexcorp someday.

Well, I wouldn't mind seeing Lexcorp, but Lex in the Donner/Singer movies wasn't anything like Pre or Post-Crisis Lex. He was more of a comical criminal conman and to be honest he reminded me more of Burgess Meridith's Penguin from the Batman TV series than any version of Luthor. Very weak villain played by two very great actors. Superman as the real was done, but I like the more nuanced take where Superman is both best, and I've never liked anything with Clark as the real. That's not Superman.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

You are right in places and I disagree in others, but he has to be Clark AND Superman for the series to work. If they are the exact same person then Superman is the exact same character as every other superhero. But he's not. And nothing personal at all, but if I'm quoting anyone on the Superman/Clark Kent issue, it will be Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, Quentin Tarantino, etc. I'm pretty sure those guys understand how well written fiction works, and I'm also pretty sure John Byrne is an overrated hack, and it was him and Frank Miller (who clearly hates Superman) who cooked up the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" BS. So I'll take my cues from people like Maggin who wrote Superman for over 10 years or Jerry Siegel who ONLY created the character. Again, nothing personal, but I'll take the opinions of the best of the best and my favorite Superman writer of all time over anyone on an internet message board.

Wow, that reads no different than "not to sound racist buuuut". You know, the kind that always preceed a racist comment.

Instead its just not personal, but your opinion does not matter to the great myself.

You're always trying to justify why your opinion is more valid than the person you are quoting.

That is more than not agreeing, and it looks self-righteous.

By YOUR own logic he could take HIS favorite Superman writer over you opinion too. t:

 

[The Question]

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"

Yeah, that's kind of silly too. Clark obviously gets something out of being Superman, other than fulfilling his responsibilities, that he couldn't as just plain old Clark. But the reverse is also true.

You are right in places and I disagree in others, but he has to be Clark AND Superman for the series to work. If they are the exact same person then Superman is the exact same character as every other superhero. But he's not. And nothing personal at all, but if I'm quoting anyone on the Superman/Clark Kent issue, it will be Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer, Alan Moore, Elliot S! Maggin, Quentin Tarantino, etc. I'm pretty sure those guys understand how well written fiction works, and I'm also pretty sure John Byrne is an overrated hack, and it was him and Frank Miller (who clearly hates Superman) who cooked up the "Clark Kent is the real person, Superman is the disguise" BS. So I'll take my cues from people like Maggin who wrote Superman for over 10 years or Jerry Siegel who ONLY created the character. Again, nothing personal, but I'll take the opinions of the best of the best and my favorite Superman writer of all time over anyone on an internet message board.

Quoting Quentin Tarantino for Superman doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Superman speech from Kill Bill was given by the main villain of the film to showcase the character's misanthropy. I doubt it was meant to be a serious analysis of the character on Tarantino's part, just a subject that would make for a good showcase of Bill's cynicism.

Wow, that reads no different than "not to sound racist buuuut". You know, the kind that always preceed a racist comment.

Instead its just not personal, but your opinion does not matter to the great myself.

You're always trying to justify why your opinion is more valid than the person you are quoting.

That is more than not agreeing, and it looks self-righteous.

By YOUR own logic he could take HIS favorite Superman writer over you opinion too. t:

I do have to agree, Mr. Kurosawa. You did kind of make it sound like my opinion doesn't matter simply because I'm not one of the six Superman related writers that you like. Which is kind of rude. Just because I'm not a published author doesn't mean I don't know anything about literature.

 

[Kurosawa]

Wow, that reads no different than "not to sound racist buuuut". You know, the kind that always preceed a racist comment.

Instead its just not personal, but your opinion does not matter to the great myself.

You're always trying to justify why your opinion is more valid than the person you are quoting.

That is more than not agreeing, and it looks self-righteous.

By YOUR own logic he could take HIS favorite Superman writer over you opinion too. t:

Oh good grief. Dramatic much? I think The Question can defend himself. And what, are you implying I'm a racist or something? That is one of the most insulting replies to any post that I've ever made. Look, we disagree. Fine. I'm going to state my case as to why I'm right. And yes, I am trying to justify why my opinion is more valid. Do you know why? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW YOU DEBATE. You state your position and THEN you give facts and quotes and the opinions of writers you respect to back it up. Instead of criticizing me and insulting me on a personal level (like you are falsely accusing me of doing), you could always try to make your case as to why I am wrong and Jerry Siegel had it wrong when he created Superman and made Superman the real personality and Clark a disguise.

The deconstructionist movement is just amazing. No wonder it was so easy for them to tear Superman down. The characters own fans handed them the picks and axes to do it with. All of this bickering-on both sides-is part of why Superman is so bogged down. But DC and John Byrne started it when they decided to tear every ounce of Siegel's vision away from the character in 1986. You take away the Clark Kent that Siegel created, you are in effect taking him and Shuster out of the strip. That's why I find it so disgusting and insulting.

Yeah, that's kind of silly too. Clark obviously gets something out of being Superman, other than fulfilling his responsibilities, that he couldn't as just plain old Clark. But the reverse is also true.



Quoting Quentin Tarantino for Superman doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Superman speech from Kill Bill was given by the main villain of the film to showcase the character's misanthropy. I doubt it was meant to be a serious analysis of the character on Tarantino's part, just a subject that would make for a good showcase of Bill's cynicism.



I do have to agree, Mr. Kurosawa. You did kind of make it sound like my opinion doesn't matter simply because I'm not one of the six Superman related writers that you like. Which is kind of rude. Just because I'm not a published author doesn't mean I don't know anything about literature.

Well, I took a bunch of lit classes and got an English degree, but I'm not going to discount the opinions of writers I respect greatly, and I don't know why anyone would. Maybe I did come off a bit snippy and for that I apologize. Tarantino wrote Bill's speech almost word from word from Feiffer's book and while parts of it reflected Bill's character, most of it was actually accurate IMO. My main exception with it is that I think Clark Kent is more Superman's tribute and love letter to the human race than his criticism of it. I feel I know quite a bit about literature and more precisely, comics literature (which is entirely different from other forms of literature) myself. You and I actually agree more on Superman than I do with some other people who are actually Byrne shippers, which you certainly are not. So I have no problems with you and we've always disagreed in an amicable manner at least. Again, my apologies.

 

[The Question]

The deconstructionist movement is just amazing. No wonder it was so easy for them to tear Superman down. The characters own fans handed them the picks and axes to do it with. All of this bickering-on both sides-is part of why Superman is so bogged down. But DC and John Byrne started it when they decided to tear every ounce of Siegel's vision away from the character in 1986. You take away the Clark Kent that Siegel created, you are in effect taking him and Shuster out of the strip. That's why I find it so disgusting and insulting.

There's nothing wrong with deconstruction. You deconstruct a character or genre so you can understand their strengths and weaknesses and then go on to do them better.

Well, I took a bunch of lit classes and got an English degree, but I'm not going to discount the opinions of writers I respect greatly, and I don't know why anyone would. Maybe I did come off a bit snippy and for that I apologize. Tarantino wrote Bill's speech almost word from word from Feiffer's book and while parts of it reflected Bill's character, most of it was actually accurate IMO. My main exception with it is that I think Clark Kent is more Superman's tribute and love letter to the human race than his criticism of it. I feel I know quite a bit about literature and more precisely, comics literature (which is entirely different from other forms of literature) myself. You and I actually agree more on Superman than I do with some other people who are actually Byrne shippers, which you certainly are not. So I have no problems with you and we've always disagreed in an amicable manner at least. Again, my apologies.

It's cool.

I still do think it's a bad idea to reference Tarantino, simply because it hurts your credibility. The scene isn't supposed to say anything about Superman, it was supposed to say something about Bill. Namely that he's a cynical *******.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Pff I can`t even begin to think why somebody would like that half-assed explanation for Superman in Kill Bill.

A Superman who looks down on humankind? Clark Kent, the bumblin fool, a critique on humankind? LMFAO.

And how a disguise, a bumbling fool, would EVER be a love letter to mankind I have no idea...

Oh, how about a god that lives his life as a human, is damn proud of it and, at the same time, protects everything that`s good about this planet? Now this IS the love letter.

Question said it best: Clark Kent is Superman is Clark Kent. Both are real. Period. No masks, no disguises. Just layers, shades of the same character.


To simplify a very deep character like Superman that has many layers is to take away a lot of what makes him unique.

Anyways, i don`t care if its based on pre-crisis, post-crisis. They should find a middle term. What this movie needs to have is heart and an uplifting feeling like Superman for all seasons. That is to me the quintessential Superman story. Simple, humble, beautiful, just like the character. Not the overrated All-Star Superman and Morrison`s crazyness or Geoff Johns Sucky Origins. I even like Lois & Clark and Superman TAS over Superman the movie.

Disagree what you may. Thats how i view things and a internet forum isn`t gonna change that. I`m just a fan of the character, not the owner of the truth and nor do i shove my degrees and inflated ego down people`s throat...

 

[TruerToTheCore]

And how a disguise, a bumbling fool, would EVER be a love letter to mankind I have no idea...

And what has this guy to do with the pre-crisis Clark Kent?

You will never learn.

Ever noticed that the post-crisis fans always talk down the pre-crisis Superman and hate on the concept itself, while pre-crisis fans usually just point out what they feel is wrong with the Byrne version and why it doesn't fit Superman? Byrne's take is certainly not a bad character and offered some good stories, but he is just nothing special. He is one of many superheroes.

 

[SuperDaniel]

So the bumblin fool isn`t pre-crisis? A Clark Kent that is a total fabrication, acts like an idiot all the time to throw away suspicion and someone who Lois would never fall in love with, making their relationship NEVER work?

okaaaay....

That`a why we got amnesia kiss in Superman II and why the relationship between Lois & Superman works so MUCH better in Lois & Clark and in Smallville.

There at least Clark has heart and is real, not just a total fabrication. In fact, i`m loving what Smallville is doing. Lois always knowing the secret from the start and she might even help develop the personas.

 

[JAK®]

Pre-Crisis Clark Kent is MILD MANNERED. The bumbling fool appeared only in Christopher Reeve's incarnation, and was adapted in All Star Superman.

The only people who don't seem to know this are the ones who argue against Pre-Crisis Superman...

 

[The Sage]

So the bumblin fool isn`t pre-crisis? A Clark Kent that is a total fabrication, acts like an idiot all the time to throw away suspicion and someone who Lois would never fall in love with, making their relationship NEVER work?

okaaaay....

As everyone said, the bumbling fool is Donner's interpretation, not the pre-crisis version. And I'd personally prefer Lois to fall in love with Superman over Clark Kent.

There at least Clark has heart and is real, not just a total fabrication. In fact, i`m loving what Smallville is doing. Lois always knowing the secret from the start and she might even help develop the personas.

If that happens, weeeaaaaaak.

 

[The Question]

You know, Kurosawa, I must say, discussing this with you has made me look deeper at Superman's character and identity than I have in the past, for which I must thank you. And I do agree, there is a certain uniqueness to Superman in that regard, although I view it a little differently than you do. The way I see it, yes, Spider-Man is pretty much just a more talkative Peter Parker wearing a mask. But with Superman... Clark needs to be Clark, to have a life like that and be invested in the world he was raised in and the human identity he was raised in, in order to be happy. So that's who he really is. Clark needs to be Superman, to fulfill his responsibilities and use his abilities to their fullest extend, showing off every part of him that would otherwise be hidden to the world and have a chance to reach beyond the limits of a normal human being. So Superman is who he really is. These are not contradictory statements about the character, these are the same truth about him. He's a complicated man. And I like that a lot.

 

[JAK®]

Another thing people need to realise is that there are FOUR identities;

Farmboy Clark Kent, the man raised by the Kents, the true personality who uses his powers casually, does not wear glasses, and his home is in Smallville.

Superman, basically a more serious Farmboy Kent who is assertive, authoritative and determined at his job.

Daily Planet Clark Kent, a disguise made of glasses, ill-fitting suits and a timid, mild-mannered nature.

Kal-El, the side of Superman that desires to know more about his Kryptonian heritage, who has inherited his scientific curiosity from his father, Jor-El.

So yes, Clark Kent is who he is, but Superman is not just 'what he can do'. It is Clark being himself, but in a way that protects the ones he loves.

 

[The Question]

Another thing people need to realise is that there are FOUR identities;

Farmboy Clark Kent, the man raised by the Kents, the true personality who uses his powers casually, does not wear glasses, and his home is in Smallville.

Superman, basically a more serious Farmboy Kent who is assertive, authoritative and determined at his job.

Daily Planet Clark Kent, a disguise made of glasses, ill-fitting suits and a timid, mild-mannered nature.

Kal-El, the side of Superman that desires to know more about his Kryptonian heritage, who has inherited his scientific curiosity from his father, Jor-El.

So yes, Clark Kent is who he is, but Superman is not just 'what he can do'. It is Clark being himself, but in a way that protects the ones he loves.

Y'see, I think that's getting way to poetical. He's one guy. One singular individual. He's not dissociative. He just wants a lot of things.

 

[JAK®]

Well, I'm open to other interpretations. But there is one thing that I will NEVER agree on;

That Clark Kent as he appears at the Daily Planet is in any way, shape or form, not a disguise and the true personality of the character.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Pre-Crisis Clark Kent is MILD MANNERED. The bumbling fool appeared only in Christopher Reeve's incarnation, and was adapted in All Star Superman.

The only people who don't seem to know this are the ones who argue against Pre-Crisis Superman...

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.


Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Well, I'm open to other interpretations. But there is one thing that I will NEVER agree on;

That Clark Kent as he appears at the Daily Planet is in any way, shape or form, not a disguise and the true personality of the character.

Meh. I'd rather think he loves being a reporter and uses writing to change the world too. The pen is mightier than the sword, as the say. So yeah, he is real too. He just hides some aspects of his life like we all do in our everyday lives.

 

[The Question]

Well, I'm open to other interpretations. But there is one thing that I will NEVER agree on;

That Clark Kent as he appears at the Daily Planet is in any way, shape or form, not a disguise and the true personality of the character.

But the thing is, I think it is. Just as much as the persona he puts on as Superman is his true self. There would be no point in having either if one didn't speak to a part of his life he needs to express. Yes, he affects his mannerisms and voice in both to make them seem like distinct people. But he has the Superman identity, as well as the normal life and job of Clark Kent, to be true to himself. He's not a guy pretending to be something he's not, he's a guy with a lot of layers and conflicting desires who does what he can to keep the different parts of his life separate so he can keep all of them.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I don`t know how people could possibly like any one-dimensional characterization of Superman, Question. It makes so much sense for them all to be real, just different layers. The beauty is in the details...

 

[The Sage]

Sage, Lois could NEVER have a public romantic relationship with Superman. Its just not safe and that's why it makes sense for her to fall in love with Clark and then they both hide the secret, just like what happened in L&C which is the best interpretation EVER of their relationship, IMO.

Meh, I wouldn't go that far.

In my mind, this is how it would play out. Superman and Lois fall in love with each other, Superman then reveals to her that's he's Clark Kent as well. Then at some point, Clark Kent and Lois start dating publicly.

I don`t know how people could possibly like any one-dimensional characterization of Superman, Question. It makes so much sense for them all to be real, just different layers. The beauty is in the details...

That's pretty much what they're getting at, that all of them are real, except the mild-mannered Clark Kent is more of a persona than the rest of them, and hardly less one-dimensional.

 

[The Sage]

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.

Interesting enough, apparently Marvel really only started beating Superman in sales once the alteration to the Superman/Clark Kent persona was made, almost as if to say, Superman is more fascinating when his unique duality is intact.

That...and a lot of authors just don't know how to write him.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Also i'm of the mindset that once he started gaining his abilities etc being able to see the microscopic makeup of people, read their dna, fly, see untold wonders beneath the ocean, he'd experience character growth beyond that of growing up on a farm. I think he starts out as Clark KEnt raised by the kents, but once the powers come the Kal-el personality starts to come out a bit more. He starts to see the world through alien eyes although filtered through a more human perspective. I think it's that merger of clark (guy he was raised as) and kal-el (his unique alien experience of life on earth with his powers) would allow him to emerge as Superman, the perfect combo of the two. Superman is clark at his heroic best. While i also think the unique viewpoint would result in kind of a science geek personality for clark, he'd be facinated with the things he can do and see.

That aspect of his personality isn't shown to everyone but as Metropolis clark he can let his inner geek shine a little bit and he enjoys it. While as Superman he's all hero, the guy people and trust and rely on. When he relaxed he's a bit of the clark kent that grew up in smallville if he's around his folks or someone who knows his secret, but if he's at the fortress you'd get more of Kal-el, the unique alien parts he can finally let show, and do things that would normally freak people out.

Your experiences change you. People who don't grow are mostly people who have just stayed in the same place with the same circustances their whole life. People who do travel, experience different things, grow and change. Just look at Bruce Wayne, isnt' that what the entire concept of BAtman is based on, him traveling the world gaining all these skills and insight to finally emerege as batman. He's not the same kid who left gotham.

But with Superman it's so much more than simply traveling, it's a fundamental change in how he literally sees the world once his power emerge. I mean, it's like what Johnathan told clark "once you start defying gravity i think we're in new territory". Seriously one trip into outer space, being able to see the whole earth would make such a huge impression on him. Then his speed, his eyesight, he'd simply be facinated by what he can do, and would (i would think) be something of scientist with his unqiue observations, etc. At least that's how i see it.

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.

I posted all the stuff above and still think it's the most organic approach to the character. There's an internal logic there shows clark as a very complex and interesting character. People say Superman is boring etc. , but not if he's approached as written above.

I agree the argument about who's real and who isn't is silly, it's just aspects of his personality brought out at different times depending on the setting/circumstances. I think his depth of character that allows him to have such complex layers. It truly is a facinating character.

The line from Kill Bill is just lame. Look at clark kent in smallville, one of the biggest complaints against the series is his lack of "supermanness" or not acting much like superman during those middle seasons b/c of his reluctant attitude etc. According to Bill all his needs is some powers and bam he's superman, but that's a lie. Its what he chooses to do with those powers that makes him Superman. Otherwise any kryptonian would basically be Superman. It's not just about the powers but his attitude, inspiration, all the things he represents that makes Superman the symbol that he is. Just a guy with powers wouldn't cut it.

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.

I like this approach to the character as well. Very organic. I think that's the key to really getting an audience to believe in the character, relate, etc. make his growth organic rather than artificial.

 

[JAK®]

LOL. Really? What about Action Comics #1 in which Lois calls Clark an unbearable COWARD?

What about in Action Comics #1 where Superman can't fly?

Golden Age Superman isn't the same thing as Pre-Crisis Superman.

Mild-mannered, Bumbling fool, disguise, coward, all the same BS. Clark is a mere disguise. Maybe Reeve overacted but the essentials are the same. Superman pretending to be human and acting. Clark was definitely NOT REAL in pre-crisis.

You're assuming a lot if you think Clark Kent, as he appears at the DAILY PLANET, is Superman pretending to be a human like the interpretation offered in Kill Bill.

I hate it, no matter what you guys say and NOTHING is going to change my mind about it. It is a one-dimensional perspective on Superman and thats why MARVEL has been whooping Superman's ass on sales ever since Spider-man was invented. Same with Batman. NOBODY cares about an unrelatable god. This version of Superman just plain sucks and is dated. Characters evolve through time and thank god Superman isn`t the same as when he was created.

It's only one dimensional to you because you don't understand it. That's okay, not everyone gets Superman. 'Unrelatable god', that's the mantra of those who just don't get it. Go read Spider-Man instead. Or post-crisis Superman, who was made to be more like Spider-Man.

I don't see how making the Clark/Superman identity just like every other superhero ever makes the character more interesting.