Post-Crisis or Pre-Crisis

[TruerToTheCore]

The development of these characters don't end with their creators, nor do they strictly adhere to original intentions. Especially after several decades and reinterpretations.

The guys who invented the character got it right... "probably"?

Characters will change with time, but the Post-crisis Superman was a TOTAL INVERSION of Superman's concepts.

 

[Crook]

In what way? It may have altered aspects of the character, but nothing that would be a complete 180 for what Supes stood for.

 

[Timstuff]

Word.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think that is DCAU Superman. I'll say one thing. My biggest worry is not Superman, but Lex Luthor. I never liked Donnerverse Lex Luthor, and I never will.

Agreed. That's part of why I don't at all mind the idea of Lex being in the Superman reboot, because modern Lex Luthor and Donner's Luthor are practically two different characters.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

In what way? It may have altered aspects of the character, but nothing that would be a complete 180 for what Supes stood for.

No, he did.

He made Superman an act.
He made the "ultimate man" into a "regular guy with powers".

These are facts.

 

[Crook]

No, he did.

He made Superman an act.
He made the "ultimate man" into a "regular guy with powers".

These are facts.

That's a shift in how an identity is portrayed. That's not changing the core values of the character.

 

[Kurosawa]

The development of these characters don't end with their creators, nor do they strictly adhere to original intentions. Especially after several decades and reinterpretations.

Superman was the primary identity for almost 50 years, including the most successful periods of the character's existence. People have Spider-Man for a relateable hero; Superman should be an inspirational hero. And it's not a coincidence that Batman regained legitimacy in the early 70's when DC returned to a portrayal of the character that was closer to the Finger/Kane original. DC and WB needs to do the same with Superman. This could even include him working outside the law, showing the social conscience of the early Siegel series.

To be honest, I'd love to see the character reimagined in this manner, up to the K-Metal story where DC took control of the series from Siegel and Shuster, and carrying on from the direction of that story.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

Superman was the primary identity for almost 50 years, including the most successful periods of the character's existence. People have Spider-Man for a relateable hero; Superman should be an inspirational hero. And it's not a coincidence that Batman regained legitimacy in the early 70's when DC returned to a portrayal of the character that was closer to the Finger/Kane original. DC and WB needs to do the same with Superman. This could even include him working outside the law, showing the social conscience of the early Siegel series.

To be honest, I'd love to see the character reimagined in this manner, up to the K-Metal story where DC took control of the series from Siegel and Shuster, and carrying on from the direction of that story.

Yeah!

 

[Michael Corleone]

There needs to be a balance of both. Superman as a god is boring and so is a sophisticated Clark Kent. Kent in metropolis should be very much a disguise. Clark on the farm should reflect his upbringing and Superman should reflect his connection to his heritage. Kent in Metropolis is the fake. Clark on the farm and Superman should make up the man. Not three different people, but two different parts of him as a person. As far as power goes, when you get into the fantastical, it just gets boring and no one wants to see that from a audience point of view. Fanboys will want to see one or the other, but for this film to be successful, the Superman Godlike powers aren't going to help.

 

[SatEL]

There needs to be a balance of both. Superman as a god is boring and so is a sophisticated Clark Kent. Kent in metropolis should be very much a disguise. Clark on the farm should reflect his upbringing and Superman should reflect his connection to his heritage. Kent in Metropolis is the fake. Clark on the farm and Superman should make up the man. Not three different people, but two different parts of him as a person. As far as power goes, when you get into the fantastical, it just gets boring and no one wants to see that from a audience point of view. Fanboys will want to see one or the other, but for this film to be successful, the Superman Godlike powers aren't going to help.

Well Post crisis power level hits pre-crisis stage at times, heck post crisis Supes has held a black hole open with his bare hands. Me personally I like my Superman powerful and Super as opposed to him been strong man that can fly.

 

[Kurosawa]

Superman's worked with both extreme and more reserved power levels, but he's never worked with the Clark identity being the primary identity. Not that meek Clark is a complete act; I consider him to be an expression of Kal's personality and of the people that Superman fights for above all others.

Mild Mannered Clark is Kal-El's sensitive side in a lot of ways.

 

[Deaths Head II]

I think theres a strong chance Superman will be the real identity, simply because in the Nolan films Batman is the true identity. Pompous spoiled Bruce Wayne and bumbling goofball Clark Kent always seemed to work along the same lines for me.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I think theres a strong chance Superman will be the real identity, simply because in the Nolan films Batman is the true identity. Pompous spoiled Bruce Wayne and bumbling goofball Clark Kent always seemed to work along the same lines for me.

No. In the Nolan movies. "Batman" is not the "main identity". It's the guy you see with Rachel and Alfred who he is the "real identity". The guy with the silly voice is not the real persona.

 

[TruerToTheCore]

I think theres a strong chance Superman will be the real identity, simply because in the Nolan films Batman is the true identity. Pompous spoiled Bruce Wayne and bumbling goofball Clark Kent always seemed to work along the same lines for me.

No. In the Nolan movies. "Batman" is not the "main identity". It's the guy you see with Rachel and Alfred who he is the "real identity". The guy with the silly voice is not the real persona.

 

[I Am The Knight]

No. In the Nolan movies. "Batman" is not the "main identity". It's the guy you see with Rachel and Alfred who he is the "real identity". The guy with the silly voice is not the real persona.

Nolan intended for the opposite though. Even going as far as blatantly telling us that Batman is the real identity through Rachel at the end of BB, and through Rachel's letter in TDK. But I know it doesn't comes off that way when you actually see the movies.

 

[Timstuff]

The way I see it, Batman and Bruce Wayne are almost like two people competing over the same body. Then, there's the phony Bruce Wayne who is the public daytime persona.

 

[Cain]

People keep reffering to the 1978 Donner Superman as "Pre-Crisis", when he is not the Pre-Crisis Superman, he is Donner's own version. There are some pretty big differences between the movie Superman and the Pre-Crisis Superman from the comics.

- Pre-Crisis Superman was Superboy while in Smallville. Donner's was not.
- Pre-Crisis Krypton looked totally different from the Donner version. it was much more Flash Gordon/Jetsons looking.
-Pre-Crisis Luthor was a mad scientest, and knew Superman from his Superboy days.
-Pre-Crisis Superman was a bit more powerful than movie Supes, turning time back or not. In the movie it seemed like that particular task put a strain on him, where in the comics he could fly through time under his own power and do more spectacular feats without breaking a sweat.
-Pre-Crisis, BOTH Ma and Pa Kent die.

What's funny is that Post Crisis Superman has MORE in common with Donner Superman than Pre-Crisi does! Yet people cite the Donner version as being the Pre-Crisis version simply because it came out in '78, putting it chronologically 7 years before the Crisis was published. But by that time, the movie series was so ingrained in the public's mind, that John Byrne and Marv Wolfman made the new Post Crisis Superman resemble the movie version more than he ever had before.

-Post Crisis Superman's Krypton is a stark, cold world, where Jor-El wears flowing robes and things seem a bit more inspired by the Donner Krypton than the Pre-Crisis Krypton
-Superman never had a public career as Superboy Post Crisis
-Lex Luthor is now an evil business man, not a mad scientest. This was writer Marv Wolfman's idea, who was inspired somewhat by the movie Luthor, although a more poweful and less goofy version.
-Ma Kent is alive

The version we have now in the comics is kind of a mix of both versions, with some Donner thrown in. And frankly, that's what any reboot needs to do as well. There are 70 years worth of stuff, pick and choose the best.

This man knows what he's talking about

 

[Oddzball]

Being Superman isn't a job for him. A job is something you can get tired of doing. It's not a damnation because that's a form of punishment. Superman doesnt get tired of helping people. It's his calling, and when you're doing that you don't hate it, you enjoy it. He is Superman.

It's a damnation in the sense that he can't walk away from it. No matter what. Not even to save his family. It's a damnation because Curses can be broken. Damnation's more permanent.

 

[Oddzball]

That's not how Jerry Siegel intended it to be, nor did he ever write Superman that way.

So no.

Jerry Siegel has had very little to do with Superman for quite a while. His Superman threw men who did what he didn't like done into cometary orbits. No trial.

 

[Oddzball]

Agreed. That's part of why I don't at all mind the idea of Lex being in the Superman reboot, because modern Lex Luthor and Donner's Luthor are practically two different characters.

This is something I find unacceptable.

Superman I. Luthor. Superman II. The Zone villains and Luthor. Superman III, Robert Vaughn playing the Luthor character under a different name. Supergirl. Faye Dunaway imitating Robert Vaughn. Superman IV. Luthor and the Atomic Man and a sales killing subtitle.

The last movie: A remake of the the first with Supes as a Stalker, And Spacey playing Luthor's personality so close to his vest the audience sees nothing.

The new movie has to break away from all of that. If Luthor shows up at all it's a cameo to set up the sequel.