Our "Space Prince": David Corenswet IS Clark Kent/Superman!

[Deck Rickard]

Straight from The Daily Planet instagram featuring the words of reporter Clark Kent.

View attachment 137413

And this is why no one trusts the media. Here’s Clark Kent literally writing a puff piece on himself.

 

[Primal Slayer]

 

[Herolee10]

View attachment 137495

View attachment 137498
View attachment 137499

 

[Lily Adler]

View attachment 137495

View attachment 137498
View attachment 137499

 

[MAN O STEEL]

 

[The Caped Knight]

 

[The Caped Knight]

 

[Deck Rickard]

I love that they’re letting Superman come off human. He’s confident, but also, doing the things he does take a toll on him physically and they’re not afraid to show that. I love his little banter with Mr. Terrific in the new trailer.

 

[GreenKToo]

"Newest" superhero. To me, it's always been crucial that Superman was the first, and other superheroes came after him and most of them tried to idolize him. Realistically, Superman shouldn't be considered a surprise to people if they've already had encounters with aliens and other metahumans, plus Green Lantern which technically alien since the Green Lantern corps comes from outer space. Still, the fact that Superman is a "new" superhero and called "Superman"...well...to most average comic book movie goers don't even know that Superman was the first, particularly the ones that think Superman is lame, but it's a wonder they think the name is unoriginal when, Superman, was in fact, the original superhero.

Superman is arguably where the trend and term "superhero" came from, before the Green Hornet was even considered a superhero, he was only a crime fighter. If not for Supes, there may not have even been a Batman, and undoubtedly there would not have been a Shazam/Captain Marvel, Spider-Man and other heroes alike.

Even if Superman is not the first superhero in this movie (which I take personally moreover actually hate it) what is most important above all, I think, is that Superman has to be portrayed as the ultimate superhero. He needs to be the beacon. I'm not saying anyone has to like Superman better--to each their own--regardless of Batman's popularity, we lived in a time (starting in 2005 and 2013 onwards) where people thought the famous 'no killing' rule came from Batman, and thanks to Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, new generations were led to believe that Superman does kill, moreover never had any such morals such as the no killing ethic. That has really bothered me so much.

The fact that Batman--whether you thought of him as cooler than Supes or not--was ranked and voted as the 'best' superhero and morally superior and more ethical than Superman, was absurd. More popular, maybe, but morally superior than Superman?? Bull. $#&%. The problem with Snyder was that he only seemed to highlight Superman's physicality more than anything else--without exploring Clark's humanity, morals or ethics at all-like truth and justice. He just seemed to be portrayed as an incredibly powerful being without a specific purpose, but could cause a ton of damage and destruction.

There was a young guy I once knew who was a huge Superman fan, but didn't like Man of Steel, and debated with me that Superman actually does kills-which I said "No, he doesn't!" and he then showed me a clip on Youtube from the animated adaptation of, "Superman Vs The Elite"...but then I asked him, "Did you not watch the entire film?" He said, "No." I told him, "But Superman didn't kill them! (the Elite) That was the whole point of the story!"

Back to the subject of the new movie--out of curiosity, how long has Superman existed in this world already? It seems we were all previously led to believe it had been 2-3 years, but now it looks like he has only been a superhero for a few weeks, or a few months?? It might make sense in the case with Lex Luthor who clearly hates Superman's guts, so why would Luthor wait after so many years to try and destroy Superman's reputation and killing him.

I have no idea the exact time he has been superman, but I'm gonna guess anywhere from 3 to 5 years.

Why? well, You don't have that easy going of a relationship with someone like lois and only have known her for a few weeks or months.

Spoiler

Throw in her being perfectly ok knowing he's Superman

and that tells me that their relationship is very fimilar and comfortable. So it's likely years old.

Clark didn't come to metropolis, start working at the DP, and then decide years later to become Superman. It would have been pretty much from day one.

And with Lex, it's basically the same thing. You don't hate someone that intensely and only have known them for a few weeks/months. Hate like that takes time to build.

I'll even wager that Lex may have even liked Superman at first, or at the least, respected him, and he may have even tried to bring superman over to "his side" to be his big gun, ie, offered him money, power, etc. But of course supes can't be bought, so Lex started resenting and even hating him.
The hate lex has for supes grew and grew and festered to where we now are in this film. That kinda hate takes years to grow.

I imagine Lex has even tried to kill Superman several times in the past, ie, with other failed supervillain projects like maybe metallo or parasite. ( I have no idea, I'm just guessing )

 

[Herolee10]

"Newest" superhero. To me, it's always been crucial that Superman was the first, and other superheroes came after him and most of them tried to idolize him. Realistically, Superman shouldn't be considered a surprise to people if they've already had encounters with aliens and other metahumans, plus Green Lantern which technically alien since the Green Lantern corps comes from outer space. Still, the fact that Superman is a "new" superhero and called "Superman"...well...to most average comic book movie goers don't even know that Superman was the first, particularly the ones that think Superman is lame, but it's a wonder they think the name is unoriginal when, Superman, was in fact, the original superhero.

Superman is arguably where the trend and term "superhero" came from, before the Green Hornet was even considered a superhero, he was only a crime fighter. If not for Supes, there may not have even been a Batman, and undoubtedly there would not have been a Shazam/Captain Marvel, Spider-Man and other heroes alike.

Even if Superman is not the first superhero in this movie (which I take personally moreover actually hate it) what is most important above all, I think, is that Superman has to be portrayed as the ultimate superhero. He needs to be the beacon. I'm not saying anyone has to like Superman better--to each their own--regardless of Batman's popularity, we lived in a time (starting in 2005 and 2013 onwards) where people thought the famous 'no killing' rule came from Batman, and thanks to Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, new generations were led to believe that Superman does kill, moreover never had any such morals such as the no killing ethic. That has really bothered me so much.

The fact that Batman--whether you thought of him as cooler than Supes or not--was ranked and voted as the 'best' superhero and morally superior and more ethical than Superman, was absurd. More popular, maybe, but morally superior than Superman?? Bull. $#&%. The problem with Snyder was that he only seemed to highlight Superman's physicality more than anything else--without exploring Clark's humanity, morals or ethics at all-like truth and justice. He just seemed to be portrayed as an incredibly powerful being without a specific purpose, but could cause a ton of damage and destruction.

There was a young guy I once knew who was a huge Superman fan, but didn't like Man of Steel, and debated with me that Superman actually does kills-which I said "No, he doesn't!" and he then showed me a clip on Youtube from the animated adaptation of, "Superman Vs The Elite"...but then I asked him, "Did you not watch the entire film?" He said, "No." I told him, "But Superman didn't kill them! (the Elite) That was the whole point of the story!"

Back to the subject of the new movie--out of curiosity, how long has Superman existed in this world already? It seems we were all previously led to believe it had been 2-3 years, but now it looks like he has only been a superhero for a few weeks, or a few months?? It might make sense in the case with Lex Luthor who clearly hates Superman's guts, so why would Luthor wait after so many years to try and destroy Superman's reputation and killing him.

I guess it really depends on the established continuity in the comics. Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't it later established that the likes of the JSA and Wonder Woman were active superheroes decades before Superman arrived on Earth?

I'm of the mind that Superman doesn't necessarily need to be the 'First Superhero' to make the same impact on other heroes. David's Superman could still inspire a new generation of heroes that ultimately results in the creation of the Justice League later down the line.

Also, I believe the recent Fandango interview confirmed that David's Superman has been active for at least three years. I would imagine that Lex probably didn't see Superman as an immediate threat at first, but later fostered intense hatred for him as his popularity and influence grew larger over time.

 

[elgaz]

Pretty much confirmed by Gunn

"We’re introducing a whole new world, which is a lot of fun," the filmmaker says in the video below. "We’re in an alternate reality where superheroes have existed for 300 years, and now we’re just picking up on the story of one particular superhero three years after he comes on the scene, who happens to be the most powerful metahuman of all time."

 

[Gu3ree]

Saw Gunn's statement about superheroes existing already for 300 years. Well, at least Lex Luthor named Superman as the most powerful being on Earth.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Kudos to the lad running DCU Updates for catching all of David's meta-tinged references to The Princess Bride throughout the current marketing campaign. He's such a bona fide film geek, and I'm here for it!

 

[Sawyer]

I hadn’t really considered that comparison to Maguire, but it kind of works.

Also lol at one of the replies being “Is ‘aww shucks’ how Superman is supposed to be?”

 

[chintai80]

there's a little chris reeves in his performance so far, but i'm feeling more comic book and dcau superman from it. and that is PERFECT.

 

[emielaen]

View attachment 138117

I hadn’t really considered that comparison to Maguire, but it kind of works.

Also lol at one of the replies being “Is ‘aww shucks’ how Superman is supposed to be?”

The wildest thing is that you'll find people who think that quality is antithetical to Superman and it is mind-boggling.

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[Lily Adler]

View attachment 138117

I hadn’t really considered that comparison to Maguire, but it kind of works.

Also lol at one of the replies being “Is ‘aww shucks’ how Superman is supposed to be?”

Peters a smart ass who despite his intelligence can't keep a woman.

 

[elgaz]

I'm probably going against the flow here, but never really enjoyed Maguire in his Peter Parker guise, though he was absolutely fine when in the suit. He played him as too awkward and geeky IMO, long creepy smiling stares and uncomfortable silences around MJ when he couldn't find the words. Much prefer Garfield's interpretation of Peter.

Regardless, really enjoying what I've seen so far of Corenswet's approach. We definitely could do with a touch of that 'aw shucks' style when it comes to Superman and it looks like he's balancing it out nicely.

 

[flickchick85]

I'm probably going against the flow here, but never really enjoyed Maguire in his Peter Parker guise, though he was absolutely fine when in the suit. He played him as too awkward and geeky IMO, long creepy smiling stares and uncomfortable silences around MJ when he couldn't find the words. Much prefer Garfield's interpretation of Peter.

Regardless, really enjoying what I've seen so far of Corenswet's approach. We definitely could do with a touch of that 'aw shucks' style when it comes to Superman and it looks like he's balancing it out nicely.

Agreed. Tobey always gave me bad/creeper vibes, which made him a bad fit for the type of character his Peter Parker was imo, which is why I always hated his casting. I'll always maintain that Andrew was the better Spidey by far.

I agree that David's Clark seems to be of a similar character type and designed to have a similar charm, but he's a much more natural fit for it than Tobey ever was imo.

 

[donuts]

Tobey Maguire was the last on screen Spidey I truly cared for.

And I would go as far to say that James Gunn's love and creativity that shines through reminds me of Sam Raimi's approach to the wallcrawler.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I liked Tobey a lot, at least until Spider-Man 3. I really like Holland. Garfield never did anything for me. I will give him that he had great chemistry with Emma Stone (much more than Tobey had with Kirsten Dunst).

Wait… did all three Spider-Men date their costars at one point?

 

[The Caped Knight]

Wait… did all three Spider-Men date their costars at one point?

Yes

 

[Lily Adler]

I'm probably going against the flow here, but never really enjoyed Maguire in his Peter Parker guise, though he was absolutely fine when in the suit. He played him as too awkward and geeky IMO, long creepy smiling stares and uncomfortable silences around MJ when he couldn't find the words. Much prefer Garfield's interpretation of Peter.

Regardless, really enjoying what I've seen so far of Corenswet's approach. We definitely could do with a touch of that 'aw shucks' style when it comes to Superman and it looks like he's balancing it out nicely.

It's why a certain someone has a crush on that version of Peter.