Father/Son moments...

[Kal-El.9859]

I still think Ma Kent needs to stick around...it would work just fine. Then have her die in the sequel or whatever

 

[SuperDaniel]

Kill them both? Kurosawa likes his Superman to be like any other hero, whose parents need to die in order for them to become a hero. I dont give a crap about what happens in the Batman story.

Superman is ANOTHER very different character and it would be good to have the hero's parents live for a change instead of killing them. This has become a very stupid cliche that every movie uses. Superman goes home because he loves his parents and not to seek any goddamn advice. Read the goddamn comics instead of talking bs.

Let Superman be different than any other hero. Let his Earth parents live. The theme should be hope not suffering or tragedy. Tragedy already happened on Krypton. In fact, Smallville and his creation have to be the complete opposite of tragedy.

The way it was done in Superman for all seasons was perfect. Superman becomes Superman because it is the right thing to do, not because some relative die.

 

[Kurosawa]

Kill them both? Kurosawa likes his Superman to be like any other hero, whose parents need to die in order for them to become a hero. I dont give a crap about what happens in the Batman story.

Superman is ANOTHER very different character and it would be good to have the hero's parents live for a change instead of killing them. This has become a very stupid cliche that every movie uses. Superman goes home because he loves his parents and not to seek any goddamn advice. Read the goddamn comics instead of talking bs.

Let Superman be different than any other hero. Let his Earth parents live. The theme should be hope not suffering or tragedy. Tragedy already happened on Krypton. In fact, Smallville and his creation have to be the complete opposite of tragedy.

The way it was done in Superman for all seasons was perfect. Superman becomes Superman because it is the right thing to do, not because some relative die.

Superman is like every other hero when the secret identity is the real person and the superhero the mask. Like Byrne turned him into. Like Jerry Siegel never meant him to be. Peter Parker, Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Hal Jordan, all are the real person and became heroes for different reasons. Only Superman had a Birthright of heroic greatness among the Golden Age greats. That is what made Superman unique, not him having an ultra-bland perfect family life and no loss and no soul.

Jerry Siegel (Superman's creator) never gave the deaths of the Kents as the reason that Superman became a hero, nor have I EVER said that their death is the motivation for Superman. Their death-and his failure to prevent it-served as a HUGE lesson that even for him, there are limits to what he can do. Name a SINGLE successful heroic character with a Richie Cunningham perfect white picket fence family. There ISN'T one and the Post-Crisis Superman does NOT count because that character is a proven failure, as Superman's decline to near-irrelevance proves.

But they do need to be gone. Mitchell Siegel was murdered and a year later, Superman was created. That is not a coincidence. Superman was a success when he was an independent adult, not a cross between Jethro, Ritchie Cunningham and Peter Parker.

And although I respect Loeb, Superman for all Seasons is a classic example of the Lil' Abner/Jethro character that Superman was turned into by Byrne. I don't know how many times this MUST be explained but...

JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN.

From 1986 to the present, Superman has been a supremely whitebread character with no pathos or emotions. The character is bland, bland, bland. It's the difference between Stevie Wonder and Donnie and Marie. Everything that made Superman the #1 superheroic legend of all time was abandoned, and that is when the character began to decline. A character like the Post-Crisis version who had no pain, no loss, no soul, is fated to fail and did so spectacularly. No soul, no loss, no complexity, no pathos, no interest. Failure.

And this is completely typical of the schism within the Superman fanbase. Lots of people say they love Superman but dislike everything that his creators intended him to be and everything that was done with him for the first 50 years of his existence.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

john byrne did not create superman!!!

 

[NotFadeAway]

Judging by my signature, I'm obviously a fan of Lost.And ater rewatching the series finale complusively, I couldn't help but picture Superman and Jor-El having a similiar moment ti the one Jack and Christian had . Granted, that was the afterlife but I think you know what I'm getting at. Hell, copy that route. Hollywood is full of copycats anyway.

But I'd also feel guilty for not putting Jonathan Kent in place of Jor-El. It seems disrespectful. The only satisfying solution I can come up with is Superman having a moment with Jor-El and Jonathan at the same time.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Whatever you say, Kuro. Im not going down this road with you again. I dont think Byrne created Superman but i think he made some good changes that WERE MUCH needed to the character and getting rid of Superboy was one of them. I hate the concept so much. He paved the way for the Luthor we love nowadays.

He made some choices i dont like it like reversing the identity thing, Krypton as a planet that deserved to die, pocket universes and all that bs but keeping the Kents alive was great, imo, just because we can see Superman's earthly roots more and that I relate a lot, being from a family from the countryside. It is one of the aspects of Superman that i love a lot.

But anyways, as long as it is written good, i dont care either way. In All-Star Superman his Death was done beautifully and I was pissed off they didnt keep this in the movie. Im not as close-minded as you are nor do I hail Siegel and Shuster version as the definitive version of the character. Many writers have made some great changes to the character in his 70+ year history.

 

[Kurosawa]

Whatever you say, Kuro. Im not going down this road with you again. I dont think Byrne created Superman but i think he made some good changes that WERE MUCH needed to the character and getting rid of Superboy was one of them. I hate the concept so much. He paved the way for the Luthor we love nowadays.

He made some choices i dont like it like reversing the identity thing, Krypton as a planet that deserved to die, pocket universes and all that bs but keeping the Kents alive was great, imo, just because we can see Superman's earthly roots more and that I relate a lot, being from a family from the countryside. It is one of the aspects of Superman that i love a lot.

But anyways, as long as it is written good, i dont care either way. In All-Star Superman his Death was done beautifully and I was pissed off they didnt keep this in the movie. Im not as close-minded as you are nor do I hail Siegel and Shuster version as the definitive version of the character. Many writers have made some great changes to the character in his 70+ year history.

Even Byrne knows getting rid of Superboy was a mistake. As was everything else he did.

 

[SuperDaniel]

To me was the best decision ever. The character is lame as hell. I prefer Superman working in secrecy around the world., without his costume!

 

[The Batman]

....how does killing the kents make superman like every other hero...when superman was one of the first to do it?

Bryne/post crisis made superman/clark kent a marvel character. How is that not like everyone else?

Prefer what you want, but to say one version is unoriginal when preferring a version that copies something else is just ridiculous

 

[SuperDaniel]

Well, since every hero after him killed their parents or had some kind of tragedy, it would be cool if Superman was different. I mean, his parents from Krypton and his entire race are already dead...Superman doest need more tragedy in his life.

The problem of this discussion IS Superman going home to seek advice and that i dont think he should do that too. But keep his parents alive just to have him someone to talk to and have fun with. Plus it serves, in a movie, as a great moment to introduce flashbacks about his childhood and all.

Superman SHOULD NOT go home to talk about his work, simple as that. Because his parents WILL NEVER understand his work. I mean, look what happens in my personal life. How can I talk about music, for example, if my parents know nothing about it, theory wise, etc? I go home because i like their company, because I cherish the moments we're together, having fun. Superman, imo, should do the same.

Superman grew up after he left Smallville. That's when he became a man and started to think his own way. Of course that he achieved that with the help of his parents, but the moment he leaves Smallville to help people around the world as Superman should be the moment he stops to ask his parents for advice or anyone for that matter. He should be the light and KNOW what is right (or at least figure out on his own) and not seek for the light in the tunnel.

But he can go back to Smallville because he loves his parents and his hometown, remember the good times about his childhood there, among other stuff.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

 

[Kal-El.9859]

I still think there should be some sort of interaction..

 

[Rubina71]

I'm hoping we have some scenes in The Man of Steel with Jor-El and adult Kal-El in the fortress similar to Superman and Superman II where Jor-El is explaining things to Superman and the such. What do you guys and gals think?

Me too!!! I think those were the highest moments in the old movies, above all when in the first Superman, Kal-el tries to embrace his father, or when Jor-el dies to give back to his son his powers. I'd like to see something like that, but I'd like to see more scenes about the customs and Krypton's way of life. I think these things were not deeply explored in the old films, I want to know more about Krypton!

 

[Dark Raven]

Does anyone think, with Diane Lane's casting, there will be any mother/son moments?

 

[BH/HHH]

Does anyone think, with Diane Lane's casting, there will be any mother/son moments?

Well if the film having an influence from Birthright rumours are true then there could be a few there are some brilliant moments in Birthright.

 

[Rev]

Well, since every hero after him killed their parents or had some kind of tragedy, it would be cool if Superman was different. I mean, his parents from Krypton and his entire race are already dead...Superman doest need more tragedy in his life.

The problem of this discussion IS Superman going home to seek advice and that i dont think he should do that too. But keep his parents alive just to have him someone to talk to and have fun with. Plus it serves, in a movie, as a great moment to introduce flashbacks about his childhood and all.

Superman SHOULD NOT go home to talk about his work, simple as that. Because his parents WILL NEVER understand his work. I mean, look what happens in my personal life. How can I talk about music, for example, if my parents know nothing about it, theory wise, etc? I go home because i like their company, because I cherish the moments we're together, having fun. Superman, imo, should do the same.

Superman grew up after he left Smallville. That's when he became a man and started to think his own way. Of course that he achieved that with the help of his parents, but the moment he leaves Smallville to help people around the world as Superman should be the moment he stops to ask his parents for advice or anyone for that matter. He should be the light and KNOW what is right (or at least figure out on his own) and not seek for the light in the tunnel.

But he can go back to Smallville because he loves his parents and his hometown, remember the good times about his childhood there, among other stuff.

PROBLEM SOLVED!

I don't think a parent needs to understand your work and likes for them to give you any kind of advice. As parents they still have value in the wisdom that they could provide their son should he need it.

I agree that Superman grew up after leaving Smallville and he knows how to be his own man but I think that there can be room for him to have discussions with his parents concerning both his jobs. It would make for a good discussion if he had to do something as Superman that the Kents don't agree with and vice versa. Consulting with his parents or others does not really take away his instincts to know what is right and wrong especially if what he is going to do will impact lives. As a former Law Enforcement officer I had the authority to make decisions without consulting anyone else when the need arose. I would never intentionally have made a decision that would have risked someone's life but sometimes situations arose and it was wise to seek counsel because sometimes an idea or suggestion was provided that I had not thought of. Does that need to be done by Superman in every circumstance or situation? Not at all, but if he needs advice especially in the beginning, I am open to that.

 

[GA1U5]

Superman is like every other hero when the secret identity is the real person and the superhero the mask. Like Byrne turned him into. Like Jerry Siegel never meant him to be. Peter Parker, Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, Hal Jordan, all are the real person and became heroes for different reasons. Only Superman had a Birthright of heroic greatness among the Golden Age greats. That is what made Superman unique, not him having an ultra-bland perfect family life and no loss and no soul.

Jerry Siegel (Superman's creator) never gave the deaths of the Kents as the reason that Superman became a hero, nor have I EVER said that their death is the motivation for Superman. Their death-and his failure to prevent it-served as a HUGE lesson that even for him, there are limits to what he can do. Name a SINGLE successful heroic character with a Richie Cunningham perfect white picket fence family. There ISN'T one and the Post-Crisis Superman does NOT count because that character is a proven failure, as Superman's decline to near-irrelevance proves.

But they do need to be gone. Mitchell Siegel was murdered and a year later, Superman was created. That is not a coincidence. Superman was a success when he was an independent adult, not a cross between Jethro, Ritchie Cunningham and Peter Parker.

And although I respect Loeb, Superman for all Seasons is a classic example of the Lil' Abner/Jethro character that Superman was turned into by Byrne. I don't know how many times this MUST be explained but...

JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN
JOHN BYRNE DID NOT CREATE SUPERMAN.

From 1986 to the present, Superman has been a supremely whitebread character with no pathos or emotions. The character is bland, bland, bland. It's the difference between Stevie Wonder and Donnie and Marie. Everything that made Superman the #1 superheroic legend of all time was abandoned, and that is when the character began to decline. A character like the Post-Crisis version who had no pain, no loss, no soul, is fated to fail and did so spectacularly. No soul, no loss, no complexity, no pathos, no interest. Failure.

And this is completely typical of the schism within the Superman fanbase. Lots of people say they love Superman but dislike everything that his creators intended him to be and everything that was done with him for the first 50 years of his existence.

Whatever you say, Kuro. Im not going down this road with you again. I dont think Byrne created Superman but i think he made some good changes that WERE MUCH needed to the character and getting rid of Superboy was one of them. I hate the concept so much. He paved the way for the Luthor we love nowadays.

He made some choices i dont like it like reversing the identity thing, Krypton as a planet that deserved to die, pocket universes and all that bs but keeping the Kents alive was great, imo, just because we can see Superman's earthly roots more and that I relate a lot, being from a family from the countryside. It is one of the aspects of Superman that i love a lot.

But anyways, as long as it is written good, i dont care either way. In All-Star Superman his Death was done beautifully and I was pissed off they didnt keep this in the movie. Im not as close-minded as you are nor do I hail Siegel and Shuster version as the definitive version of the character. Many writers have made some great changes to the character in his 70+ year history.

I just caught this one page of posts and I have to back up Kurosawa here. If Kurosawa's saying that at least Pa Kent should die because it works better for the story, he's right. And he's not right in an "opinion" kind of way. He's flat-out factually correct.

One of the the main patterns in mythology is that the hero's mentor dies, leaving the hero to become a true hero on his own. No character can be a true hero if he has guidance through everything because it's less heroic. He must be given the knowledge he needs and then forced to master and implement it on his own, successfully becoming his own man (or woman) because it's more heroic that way. And that forcing, that permanence of having to do it on his own happens through the death of the mentor. Pa Kent is Superman's moral mentor to becoming a hero.

So Kurosawa's point is correct. If John Byrne came along and changed these things for the sake of change, well, that might sell comic books for a few years, but it doesn't make a classic mythological character better (which is what Superman is), it makes him worse.

There's a reason why Superman became an immortal character to begin with and there's a reason classic mythology has lasted thousands of years and has been told over and over again through countless versions and characters. There's something at its core that resonates with humanity and it seems that Kurosawa's point is that the reason Superman hasn't been resonating with people the way he used to is because those core mythological traits have been abandoned. That makes sense.

It actually shows you the power of mythology. Superman on his own isn't a great character, it's the myth around him that's great.

You can't just change these stories randomly and expect them to have the same power. That's like someone coming along in 1986 and saying, "You know, the Jesus myth is kinda old, I'm gonna re-invent it." And then making Jesus a limo driver. And people like the change because, hey, we've seen Jesus as a carpenter for a long time, it's nice to have something different. And then Kurosawa comes along and says, "No, Jesus shouldn't be a limo driver, that's not how mythology works," and then all you guys coming in and being completely blind and ignorant and saying, "Mmm, no, I like him as a limo driver," and ignoring logic and tradition and how mythology is supposed to be constructed.

Sorry everyone, Kurosawa's right, the rest of you are wrong.

 

[KyleDW2]

No character can be a true hero if he has guidance through everything because it's less heroic.

Batman. Alfred is still alive. Alfred has always been there. Alfred always will be there. Bruce became the Batman he is with Alfred always backing him.

Also, Marvel's Thor. He always goes to Odin for advice. Odin pretty much tells Thor what to do most of the time. Does it make him less heroic for it?

What about the X-Men and Professor X? Cyclops is the leader of all mutant kind now. Xavier molded him into that and still talks with him.

So...point made?

 

[Dar]

If Kurosawa's saying that at least Pa Kent should die because it works better for the story, he's right. And he's not right in an "opinion" kind of way. He's flat-out factually correct.

Sorry everyone, Kurosawa's right, the rest of you are wrong.

I'm nowhere near as learned as some of you on Superman mythos, but what I will say is that what works better for a story is completely a matter of opinion. Facts may be given to support the opinion, and critics and experts may have better-informed opinions, but at the end of the day it's still just an opinion.

 

[GA1U5]

Batman. Alfred is still alive. Alfred has always been there. Alfred always will be there. Bruce became the Batman he is with Alfred always backing him.

Also, Marvel's Thor. He always goes to Odin for advice. Odin pretty much tells Thor what to do most of the time. Does it make him less heroic for it?

What about the X-Men and Professor X? Cyclops is the leader of all mutant kind now. Xavier molded him into that and still talks with him.

So...point made?

Yeah, you can always find exceptions, but I'm just telling you what's in classic mythology, man. There's a reason why stories are constructed this way. It makes for better drama that connects with the human condition. That's why myths are immortal and it's why modern characters like Superman, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker and so on are based on classic mythology. So you can choose to ignore what makes that stuff work or you can acknowledge that there's something to it even if you want the story to be different for whatever personal reasons.

Even out of your 3 "exceptions," Batman isn't based on classic mythology. He wasn't spritied away from near-death and raised by farmers like Moses and Superman. His roots are in 19th century Gothic horror and tragedy, which wasn't the "horror" that we think of today, the horror of Dracula and gargoyles. So that's different.

So is Cyclops. First, he's not the main character of that story. Second, I don't think X-Men is based on classic mythology either. Marvel stories are more science-fiction-based anyway, more like, "Oh my god, a bat of chemicals got dumped on this guy," not "He was born half-man, half-god, and when he was sent to Earth he realized his astonishing power," you get the point. Oh, and also, didn't Professor X die in the 3rd X-Men movie?

Now I'm not saying every story is always the same, but there are key patterns that work when talking about this type of character. My phrase the "true hero" was referring specifically to a mythologically-based hero like Hercules, Moses, Jesus, Beowulf, Odysseus, King Arthur, Harry Potter, etc. Superman has those roots: spirited away from near death, raised in a distant land by foster-parents, disappears during his youth until he returns, marries a princess and becomes king, etc.

Look, this doesn't really matter. You can have heroes or superheroes that aren't based on mythology and they can be great characters and their mentor doesn't have to die. Like I said, I'm just telling you what's in classic mythology that has worked for thousands of years.

I'm nowhere near as learned as some of you on Superman mythos, but what I will say is that what works better for a story is completely a matter of opinion. Facts may be given to support the opinion, and critics and experts may have better-informed opinions, but at the end of the day it's still just an opinion.

A better-informed opinion is like a regular opinion with extra weight added to it, so it counts more than an ignorant opinion, but people with ignorant opinions don't like hearing that.

 

[Dar]

A better-informed opinion is like a regular opinion with extra weight added to it, so it counts more than an ignorant opinion, but people with ignorant opinions don't like hearing that.

And yet that still doesn't make it a fact, which, in addressing your original post, is really the point I was to trying to make.

 

[GA1U5]

And yet that still doesn't make it a fact, which, in addressing your original post, is really the point I was to trying to make.

Okay, to say, "It's a fact that it works better to have the hero's mentor die," I suppose cannot be true as fact, but it's backed up by three thousand years of literature, man. You can't get any closer to being a "fact" without being a fact. Someone can always come in and say, "Well I think it works better the other way," and technically it's all just opinion, but ask yourself this: what has worked in stories throughout history, what has resonated with people, what has tested well in the focus group called human history and what has lasted? I think it's become pretty proven that myth structures work. So you can say, "Well, it's not a fact," but it's pretty damn solid.

 

[Robin91939]

I don't really want to see Jor-El as the guy who told Kal-El to be Superman. I mean...I want him to advice Clark that he is going to be special and different...but I don't like the mythology of Jor-El sending Clark as a hero and savior. I viewed it as he was sent for the salvation of the Kryptonian race...and it was the Kents and Clark's own good nature that chose to use those powers and become a symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way"....

I am not belittling Jor-El or anything...I just think that he has been given WAY too much credit while Jonathan Kent keeps getting killed off...

-R

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

Jor-El and Jonathan Kent are arguably the two greatest fathers in comic book history, for their own reasons. Make both of them two key figures in Superman's life.

 

[SuperDaniel]

The problem Mr GA1U5 is that this death thing has been so OVERUSED that it became a cliche. Every goddamn story uses it nowadays. Just like every Marvel villain is a good guy turned bad. Im tired of this crap. I just want to see some bad guy because he is truly evil like, for example, the Joker in Dark Knight. That was much more interesting than, for example, Anakin in the prequels.

Superman can be different and he should be. He should not be a cliche and should point other ways to tell good stories. That's what has always been great about the character. Ok, he made the death mean something before any other character in the comics but now every hero copied him. But his story is so diverse and there are many ways to tell it that you can do something different. Superman should lead and not be a sheep.

The Kents death never made sense because Jonathan Kent isnt a mentor. He is his father. He raised him and thats it. Superman isnt a samurai or something. He was just raised right, as a normal kid. And thats what's so great. His parents raised him just like another kid. They didnt have prejudice because he was an alien or because he had this weird powers. He was just raised normally and right. And he turned out to be great because of this simplicity and the environment of Smallville. That's the message behind his upbringing. Its a parallel and critique of America of the 30's with segregation and all, the formation of the american spirit, etc.

That being said, Superman on his own, should say "look...I can use my powers for a greater good, because people need me around the world and I can make a difference". Once he sees the world beyond Smallville, because of his hability to fly and see beyond anything, then he becomes aware of his responsibilities and grows up to be Superman. No death is necessary. Just a turning point and it can be an outside natural source like the Tornado in Superman for all seasons:" I could've done more". Simple and effective. This, IMO, worked MUCH better than in STM with the death of Jonathan Kent or other pre-crisis Superman stories. He simply decides to leave Smallville to do good because he starts to realize people need him. Simple as that.

Kurosawa is just a purist and a suck up for old stories and cant see anything beyond that. Too bad you're like him.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I don't really want to see Jor-El as the guy who told Kal-El to be Superman. I mean...I want him to advice Clark that he is going to be special and different...but I don't like the mythology of Jor-El sending Clark as a hero and savior. I viewed it as he was sent for the salvation of the Kryptonian race...and it was the Kents and Clark's own good nature that chose to use those powers and become a symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way"....

I am not belittling Jor-El or anything...I just think that he has been given WAY too much credit while Jonathan Kent keeps getting killed off...

-R

QFT!!!