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

[GhostPoet]

the two things the film needs...

Lex and Lexcorp.

Heavy sci-fi elements.

Brainiac

otherwise...just don't even bother.

 

[Kurosawa]

I loathe the concept of Clark Kent as a disguise. It reflects poorly on Superman and makes him so far from relatable that it's ridiculous.

The core concept of Superman is that Clark is a disguise and an alter-ego. With every other character the civilian identity is the true person and the heroic identity the disguise. Superman being the real person and Clark the construct is what makes Superman unique, much more so than Superman being the only survivor of Krypton ever could in fact. But Clark is not a 100% construct, and even Superman himself doesn't know which side of him is the true self. He has to be Clark to cope with his responsibilities as Superman.

I've never been able to fully understand the concept of Clark Kent being the disguise. If he's been Clark Kent since before he could walk, was raised Clark Kent, and everyone calls him Clark Kent, how can it be a disguise? He found out his birth name was something else, therefore he's no longer Clark? I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, Superman's real name is Clark Kent and his real parents are the Kents. Well done on giving birth to him, El family, but you had no hand in raising him or instilling the sense of morals that he uses as Superman.

It's not that simple, nor should it be. There are two Clarks as has often been said, the public Clark and the private one. But although the Kents did raise him and shape him, his Kryptonian heritage should also be a huge part of his character. Otherwise he might as well be a mutant from Earth. Downplaying Krypton is a bad idea.

 

[Manic]

It's not that simple, nor should it be. There are two Clarks as has often been said, the public Clark and the private one. But although the Kents did raise him and shape him, his Kryptonian heritage should also be a huge part of his character. Otherwise he might as well be a mutant from Earth. Downplaying Krypton is a bad idea.

I argue that Clark doesn't need to have a "public Clark" and a "private Clark" anymore than the rest of us need a public/private version of ourselves. I can understand Clark conducting himself differently based on whether he's working or with friends, but there's no genuine need to change his personality completely when he's out in public. He's Clark, and his friends deserve to know what Clark is like. To walk around as a human caricature around people like Lois and Jimmy while calling them his friends... that's kind of a dick move. If people don't see that Clark and Superman are the same person by looking at his face, then acting like a dick around his friends is completely unnecessary.

Clark Kent isn't a disguise. That's who he is. Clark didn't finish high school, go to college, get a job, and rent out an apartment all as part of a disguise. That's Clark trying to live a normal life when he's not throwing on a wacky costume to save people.

 

[Daybreak_st]

I've never been able to fully understand the concept of Clark Kent being the disguise. If he's been Clark Kent since before he could walk, was raised Clark Kent, and everyone calls him Clark Kent, how can it be a disguise? He found out his birth name was something else, therefore he's no longer Clark? I don't buy it. As far as I'm concerned, Superman's real name is Clark Kent and his real parents are the Kents. Well done on giving birth to him, El family, but you had no hand in raising him or instilling the sense of morals that he uses as Superman.

Yeah i've heard people say that before but it's more than a name, it's more about his unique perspective on the world once he can see another person's dna, i'd think his fundamental perspective would change a little even if his basic personality didn't. I'd post this:

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's what makes the most sense for me. 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.

 

[JAK®]

I argue that Clark doesn't need to have a "public Clark" and a "private Clark" anymore than the rest of us need a public/private version of ourselves. I can understand Clark conducting himself differently based on whether he's working or with friends, but there's no genuine need to change his personality completely when he's out in public. He's Clark, and his friends deserve to know what Clark is like. To walk around as a human caricature around people like Lois and Jimmy while calling them his friends... that's kind of a dick move. If people don't see that Clark and Superman are the same person by looking at his face, then acting like a dick around his friends is completely unnecessary.

Clark Kent isn't a disguise. That's who he is. Clark didn't finish high school, go to college, get a job, and rent out an apartment all as part of a disguise. That's Clark trying to live a normal life when he's not throwing on a wacky costume to save people.

But then why does he wear glasses as a civilian to disguise himself, instead of dressing normally and putting on a mask when in costume, like every other superhero with a secret identity ever?

One of the most interesting things about Superman to me, is that he does the whole secret identity thing backwards. People forget he was born with superpowers, they weren't given to him. By hiding those powers, he is hiding his true nature.

Bumbling oaf Clark Kent is going too far, but Mild-Mannered Clark Kent is fine and isn't too harsh on Jimmy, Lois and the rest of his friends.

People are so used to superheroes like Spider-Man who puts on a costume and saves the day because they feel that is how they should use their new-found powers. But Superman is different, he is just using his natural abilities, and because of that when he is Superman he isn't playing a role as part of a secret identity, he is doing what he naturally believes he should do.

Post-Crisis Superman took the concept of Superman and tried to make him like every other superhero; and how he is just boring.

 

[Manic]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

 

[Manic]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

 

[JAK®]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

Imagine if you were the only person in the world who knew how to walk. Everyone else crawls around like a baby. Would that not make your perspective so unique, you would no longer be a normal person? And by crawling around to fit in, would that not be ignoring a large part of what makes you, you?

 

[SuperFerret]

The core concept of Superman is that Clark is a disguise and an alter-ego. With every other character the civilian identity is the true person and the heroic identity the disguise. Superman being the real person and Clark the construct is what makes Superman unique, much more so than Superman being the only survivor of Krypton ever could in fact. But Clark is not a 100% construct, and even Superman himself doesn't know which side of him is the true self. He has to be Clark to cope with his responsibilities as Superman.

You've got a crappy (in my opinion) and outdated (objectively) opinion on what makes Superman unique. Clark cannot be the construct for multiple reasons.

- He's been "Clark Kent" for as long as he can remember, "Superman" just recently became a second name for him.

- Clark being the disguise validates that quote from Kill Bill, that Clark sees humanity as weak and pathetic, which he certainly does not.

- He's "Superman" because Clark is a good man with a good upbringing. Kal-El is where he gets his powers from, Clark Kent is why he's Superman.


Also, all powered superheroes hide their powers in their public identity. The reason Clark wears glasses as Clark instead of a mask as Superman is because with Superman not wearing a mask, and having the public know he's "Kal-El of Krypton", people don't think of him having a civilian life.

People might want to know who Batman is, or who is underneath the Flash's mask, but the general populace just assumes that Superman is Superman all the time, which gives him the opportunity to just be Clark.

 

[SuperFerret]

Imagine if you were the only person in the world who knew how to walk. Everyone else crawls around like a baby. Would that not make your perspective so unique, you would no longer be a normal person? And by crawling around to fit in, would that not be ignoring a large part of what makes you, you?

No, because occasionally, I'd get to express myself by running.

 

[Kurosawa]

I argue that Clark doesn't need to have a "public Clark" and a "private Clark" anymore than the rest of us need a public/private version of ourselves. I can understand Clark conducting himself differently based on whether he's working or with friends, but there's no genuine need to change his personality completely when he's out in public. He's Clark, and his friends deserve to know what Clark is like. To walk around as a human caricature around people like Lois and Jimmy while calling them his friends... that's kind of a dick move. If people don't see that Clark and Superman are the same person by looking at his face, then acting like a dick around his friends is completely unnecessary.

Clark Kent isn't a disguise. That's who he is. Clark didn't finish high school, go to college, get a job, and rent out an apartment all as part of a disguise. That's Clark trying to live a normal life when he's not throwing on a wacky costume to save people.

Then you basically feel that the singular concept that makes Superman different from every other superhero is flawed and the character itself does not work. This is a wrongheaded opinion to me. Clark is a disguise and he is a disguise so that he can live that normal life. And we all live and act differently according to circumstances we find ourselves in. And finally, I think you and many other people tend to confuse actual people with the literary construct known as a "character".

But then why does he wear glasses as a civilian to disguise himself, instead of dressing normally and putting on a mask when in costume, like every other superhero with a secret identity ever?

One of the most interesting things about Superman to me, is that he does the whole secret identity thing backwards. People forget he was born with superpowers, they weren't given to him. By hiding those powers, he is hiding his true nature.

Bumbling oaf Clark Kent is going too far, but Mild-Mannered Clark Kent is fine and isn't too harsh on Jimmy, Lois and the rest of his friends.

People are so used to superheroes like Spider-Man who puts on a costume and saves the day because they feel that is how they should use their new-found powers. But Superman is different, he is just using his natural abilities, and because of that when he is Superman he isn't playing a role as part of a secret identity, he is doing what he naturally believes he should do.

Post-Crisis Superman took the concept of Superman and tried to make him like every other superhero; and how he is just boring.

Exactly. That's why many of the most brilliant minds to ever work in comics like Neil Gaiman, Jules Feiffer and Alan Moore agree.

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

Clark is an isn't 100% an act, and yes, people put on acts all the time in real life. It's called tact and decorum.

To reject the Clark/Superman duality is to reject the very core concept of Superman. As the last disastrous 25 years has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, getting rid of that and other core concepts sat down by his creators (Siegel and Shuster created Superman, NOT John Byrne), has cost the character deeply both artistically and commercially as Superman has become more and more irrelevant. Why read or watch a Superman that is a Spider-Man clone if you can read or watch the real thing? Answer: people don't.

 

[Manic]

Imagine if you were the only person in the world who knew how to walk. Everyone else crawls around like a baby. Would that not make your perspective so unique, you would no longer be a normal person? And by crawling around to fit in, would that not be ignoring a large part of what makes you, you?

But I wouldn't forget how to crawl. I wouldn't have to imitate crawling, because I'd be a crawler who can also walk. Also, that doesn't really give me an excuse to speak differently or pretend to crawl worse than others. And there are other people who can walk that don't need to imitate crawling.


There's a few people with abilities similar to Superman's, and they don't need to pretend to be someone else when they're not using their powers. That clumsy pre-Crisis "Clark is really the disguise" version of Clark Kent wasn't just Superman pretending he didn't have those powers. That was Superman speaking and behaving disingenuously.

There's no reason Clark has to put on an act beyond pretending he can't see dustmites across the street. Hiding his powers doesn't justify a silly voice or pretending to be kind of an idiot. No other superhero has to do that.

 

[Manic]

To reject the Clark/Superman duality is to reject the very core concept of Superman. As the last disastrous 25 years has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, getting rid of that and other core concepts sat down by his creators (Siegel and Shuster created Superman, NOT John Byrne), has cost the character deeply both artistically and commercially as Superman has become more and more irrelevant. Why read or watch a Superman that is a Spider-Man clone if you can read or watch the real thing? Answer: people don't.

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?

 

[Binker]

Answering the the topic question; there are major reasons why we look at Byrne's Superman as a starting point for Superman in all media: that's where and when we got the modern Superman, no different than how O'Neil/Adams for Batman and Wonder Woman with Perez. Us, our modern era, is in that version of Superman, and many things from his run/reboot have been seen both as part of the mythos just as much as part of media with Superman Animated to Smallville. Even recent Superman stroies like Secret Origin to the upcoming Earth One still reuse Byrne's ideas in different ways.

Regardless of the famous ideas pre-reboot, it is in some ways the only valid path because most readers, yes knowing the basics of Golden, Silver and Bronze, they ignore the rest which happen to be maybe close to 90% of those eras simply because there is nothing there. That explains why Byrne's Man of Steel was such a big hit when it was published; that was everyone's SUperman, and still is today, even DC canon regardless of Infinite Crisis.

If anything, the current comics where they are keeping post-crisis but bringing back ideas they had that were removed thanks to Crisis and tying them together (ex: Luthor was a scientist and became a businessman beause of it, it is still Clark, but Clark in Metropolis is him hidding and Superman is him being himself) is probably what all fans would want and agree with, but regardless on those who preferred Superman Animated from Byrne's, or me personally who loves Superman For All Seasons and It's Superman! A Novel (Earth One seems to be the next one on that personal short list), the first Superman writer/reboot to look at in regards to other media or this reboot film is John Byrne's The Man of Steel.

 

[SuperFerret]

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.

 

[Daybreak_st]

So... having unique abilities that allow him to see the world differently from a normal human... what? Makes Clark forget how to act like a normal person, so he has to put on an act?

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.

 

[Manic]

Daybreak, the way that you describe it, basically no version of Clark/Superman is a disguise because he's just letting out different aspects of his real personality around different people.

And that's completely normal. Just don't call one of those aspects a disguise, and we're square.

 

[JAK®]

Daybreak, the way that you describe it, basically no version of Clark/Superman is a disguise because he's just letting out different aspects of his real personality around different people.

And that's completely normal. Just don't call one of those aspects a disguise, and we're square.

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

 

[Daybreak_st]

Daybreak, the way that you describe it, basically no version of Clark/Superman is a disguise because he's just letting out different aspects of his real personality around different people.

And that's completely normal. Just don't call one of those aspects a disguise, and we're square.

Yeah i completely agree with you there. Just different parts of him, not a disguise.

 

[Manic]

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

You'd be surprised. I have a friend who wears glasses just because he likes the look.

 

[JAK®]

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.

 

[JAK®]

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.

 

[JAK®]

You'd be surprised. I have a friend who wears glasses just because he likes the look.

Does Clark Kent wear glasses as part of a fashion statement?

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

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

 

[JAK®]

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

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.