Reboot: Character Portrayal

[The Englishman]

All you people who are saying that Clark needs to act like Christopher Reeves version all the time to not make him seem at all like Superman are fogetting one major point when it comes to Superman and that is the fact that to the general DC public he does not have a secret identity, Superman is Superman all the time so they are not looking at the possibillity of Clark Kent being him. I think in the comics once Lex Luthor was presented with evidence of Clark being Superman and he dismissed it saying superman would not be someone as worthless as Kent or something like that.
People know heroes like Batman or The Flash have a secret identity because they wear a mask but Superman does not so he has no secret identity. Im not saying Clark can act exactly like supes and he would obviously take precutions like wearing the Glasses, different hair cut, Slouching and having a differnt voice tone but he does not have to go to the extreame of Chris Reeves Clark Kent.

 

[stargazer]

It needs to be done in the most believable way. Singer did it the closest to right.

Routh's Daily Planet Clark was quiet, withdrawn and faded into the background. It was the opposite of Superman and worked well.

Clark should always be divided into the real person and the Daily Planet disguise.



That's the only way to do it right in live action.

It's more than just the glasses for the CK disguise.

It's also the voice, the hair, the mannerisms; he carries himself completely different as DP Clark.

He's lanky and fades into the background.


The DP disguise certainly has the possibility of being believable if done right. Singer did it in the most realistic way.

If Routh had played a more confident and bold Superman, his DP Clark would have seemed realistically like a completely different person.


The next director just needs to take the way Singer presented it and push it to the next level of believability.


Reeve was clumsy and bumbling as Clark. He did slapstick and drew attention to himself; playing Clark as an idiot.


Routh was just a withdrawn, shy, quiet Clark in the DP. No slapstick. That's one MAJOR improvement Singer made from the Donner stuff.

AGREED!

Elliot S! Maggin also agrees,

IDEAS: Have you seen the new film? What did you think?
MAGGIN: I loved it! Isn't that appalling? There have been dozens of us writing this character over the past 70 years, and what the makers of this movie did was take the questions we've been asking and begin to answer them. I don't want to spoil it, but they resolved the Lois and Superman relationship much better than I would have ever had the chance to do. And I was glad to have Clark back to being bumbling, because that's the way I used to write him. The manners are the disguise, not the glasses or the clothes, and Brandon Routh did a great job with that.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/07/09/qa_with_elliot_s_maggin/

All you people who are saying that Clark needs to act like Christopher Reeves version all the time to not make him seem at all like Superman are fogetting one major point when it comes to Superman and that is the fact that to the general DC public he does not have a secret identity, Superman is Superman all the time so they are not looking at the possibillity of Clark Kent being him. I think in the comics once Lex Luthor was presented with evidence of Clark being Superman and he dismissed it saying superman would not be someone as worthless as Kent or something like that.
People know heroes like Batman or The Flash have a secret identity because they wear a mask but Superman does not so he has no secret identity. Im not saying Clark can act exactly like supes and he would obviously take precutions like wearing the Glasses, different hair cut, Slouching and having a differnt voice tone but he does not have to go to the extreame of Chris Reeves Clark Kent.

And he doesn't have to go to the extreme of being cool and totally confident either. Superman is the cool one, and Clark is the shy one, imo.

Dean Cain and George Reeves' interpratation of Clark were basically Superman with glasses. It was not believable in the slightest. Cain's difference as Superman was just the super arm-crossing.


Something in between is more believable for live action.

 

[afan]

Dean Cain and George Reeves' interpratation of Clark were basically Superman with glasses. It was not believable in the slightest.

Hmmmmmmm.............I don't think so.

"..............who disguised as Clark Kent...........carries on a never ending battle for truth, justice........". The battle is fought by Superman and Clark Kent. Nothing absolutely nothing in the portrayals of Reeve or Routh makes me believe that they are using thier life as Clark Kent to continue the battle.
Is it more believable to you that Superman when in his Clark guise abandons his battle in favor of playing the nebbish buffoon?

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Dean Cain and George Reeves' interpratation of Clark were basically Superman with glasses. It was not believable in the slightest. Cain's difference as Superman was just the super arm-crossing.


Something in between is more believable for live action.

Especially since Dean and George played Superman and Clark in very campy interpretations.

The film just can't be like that.



People also need to realize Reeve's DP Clark and Routh's DP Clark are not the same.

Singer changed it because he knew it would be too silly onscreen.

Reeve was literally over-the-top bumbling slapstick, a complete clutz and nerd (ex; getting himself stuck in the washroom door) etc...


None of that was present with Routh's Clark. He was just quiet, soft-spoken and withdrawn.

He didn't draw attention to himself through stupid antics like Reeve's Clark.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Reeves' Clark wasn't quite as assertive or confident as his Superman. His Clark was an everyday well-intentioned guy, and his Superman was a bold and crafty fighter.

Especially since Dean and George played Superman and Clark in very campy interpretations.

Go look up the definition of "campy" and watch a few episodes of both series you are criticizing. I'm not convinced you have.

 

[afan]

Especially since Dean and George played Superman and Clark in very campy interpretations.

Your credibility just took a self inflicted hit...........

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Reeves' Clark wasn't quite as assertive or confident as his Superman. His Clark was an everyday well-intentioned guy, and his Superman was a bold and crafty fighter.

He played them both as a father figure. He literally treated Jimmy the same way as both Clark and Superman; giving him moral advice (and to the kids of the audience the same way) and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It was camp, which is fine since it was a Saturday morning kids show.

But that would never work in a film that you expect an audience to take seriously.

It would be very insulting to audiences and critics' intelligence.

 

[Nathan]

I want Clark portrayed as being competent. That guy grew up as a normal person, as Clark Kent. Later he adopted the Superhero persona of Superman. I would also like to see an attempt of him trying to win Lois over as Clark.

 

[GreenKToo]

I'd like to see Clark be a bit more kool and have at least a little backbone...
Not kool to the point that people want to be like him, but not so much of a dork that people pity him either.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Your credibility just took a self inflicted hit...........

If you can't tell that the George Reeves and Dean Cain shows were campy..

You're the one not in touch with reality.


Even the "Look Up In The Sky" documentary described them as such.


Reeves' was a show for children.

Cain's was almost as cheesy as 80s Superboy at times.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Clark acting as he did in TAS is the ONLY way to go. All you people who want bumbling, stumbling, doofus Clark, go watch Superman: The Movie, you already recieved what you wanted. It's time for for the fans who want to see the modern age Clark Kent on the big screen to get what they want. It's not fair to go down the route of Kryptonian Jesus Superman and goofball Clark yet again.

And you know something, Clark Kent as the real person has worked in every other form of Superman media. There is no reason it can't work if written well for a big screen movie, so saying that it won't is just an excuse.

 

[Nathan]

Campy, real estate Lex and mumbling, idiot Clark are two portrayals that need to disappear.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Campy, real estate Lex and mumbling, idiot Clark are two portrayals that need to disappear.

Forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.......

As I just said in my previous post, all the Superman fans who like that stuff, you HAVE your movies already.

 

[The Guard]

This really isn't that difficult. Like anything else in an adaption, it's all about balance.

I personally think that the comics have been getting it right for years now.

Mild mannered and clumsiness are classic elements. You shouldn't ignore them in a new adaption...just don't rely on them for characterization.

The idea that people would simply not make the connection that Clark is Superman because he's bumbling around or acting cowardly is absurd. The idea that his powers could create that illusion or appearance...and create an issue he has to deal with as Clark...that's not. And I thought Singer handled that part fairly well.

But if you want people to relate to Clark, just make Clark someone people can relate to. That means he can be confident, and he can be awkward at times. He doesn't have to be one or the other, and anyone who insists he be is missing the point entirely.

Also, Clark may fade into the background sometimes, but he shouldn't be a nobody. He should be a nobody compared to Superman.

As for the glasses...look, the fact that no one figures out he's Superman even though he's using such a simple disguise is sort of the point. It's the absurdity and the innocence of it that's half the charm. You suspend your disbelief. I don't think he needs "you don't know who I am power" or anything like that.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Clark acting as he did in TAS is the ONLY way to go. All you people who want bumbling, stumbling, doofus Clark, go watch Superman: The Movie, you already recieved what you wanted. It's time for for the fans who want to see the modern age Clark Kent on the big screen to get what they want. It's not fair to go down the route of Kryptonian Jesus Superman and goofball Clark yet again.

And you know something, Clark Kent as the real person has worked in every other form of Superman media. There is no reason it can't work if written well for a big screen movie, so saying that it won't is just an excuse.

Fact is, the DP Clark you want never worked believably in live action.


That's ultimately where it fails.



The dichotomy between Clark and Superman becomes much less and less with the TAS/Byrne portrayal in live action.

It more or less becomes Superman with glasses on. That's what went wrong with Cain.

There was zero difference between the two identities.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Fact is, the DP Clark you want never worked believably in live action.


That's ultimately where it fails.



The dichotomy between Clark and Superman becomes much less and less with the TAS/Byrne portrayal in live action.

It more or less becomes Superman with glasses on. That's what went wrong with Cain.

There was zero difference between the two identities.

I attribute that to the writing on Lois&Clark being horrible. In fact, I place the blame of fans not wanting to see TAS/Byrne Clark in a feature film on the shoulders of Lois&Clark. And Dean Cain is a horrid actor. The TAS/Byrne Clark should never be judged based on Lois&Clark, Smallville has better writing than that show, which is saying something. Tom Welling is a better actor than Cain, which again says alot.

Let a competent writer or two handle it, and I'm certain it will work. It's worth a try, we have had five movies now that have went the opposite direction. In my opinion, it's time to switch it up.

Besides, I think it is safe to say that today's general audience doesn't care for the Donnerverse-esque Superman. It's that version that has caused the general public to consider Superman a boring, one note character. The TAS/Byrne version, written well, is the perfect way to prove them wrong.

You and I are always going to disagree on this.....

 

[afan]

If you can't tell that the George Reeves and Dean Cain shows were campy..

You're the one not in touch with reality.


Even the "Look Up In The Sky" documentary described them as such.


Reeves' was a show for children.

Cain's was almost as cheesy as 80s Superboy at times.

An asteroid is on a collision course with Earth. Superman, though warned that even he may not be able to survive the attempt, rockets up into space to collide with the asteroid. The collision stops the asteroid in it's tracks placing it in orbit around Earth, but Superman is weakened and returns unbeknownst to Earth with amnesia. Thanks to Superman the asteroid is not a threat to hit Earth yet it still poses a catastrohic threat as it's gravitational pull is causing global devestation. The world desperately needs Superman. Yet he is no where to be found. Did he die in the collision?

Meanwhile Clark of course is also suffering with amnesia. Why is he wearing a strange costume under his clothes. Could he be this Superman every one is looking for. Is the costume the source of Superman's amazing powers? Finally Clark resolves that no matter who he may or may not be the world needs Superman. So he returns to carry an atomic bomb to the asteroid where he detonates it oblitterating the asteroid, saving the Earth, and recovering his memory in the bargain.

"Panic in the Sky" aired 12/5/1953
Yup.....high camp to be sure.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

I attribute that to the writing on Lois&Clark being horrible. In fact, I place the blame of fans not wanting to see TAS/Byrne Clark in a feature film on the shoulders of Lois&Clark. And Dean Cain is a horrid actor. The TAS/Byrne Clark should never be judged based on Lois&Clark, Smallville has better writing than that show, which is saying something. Tom Welling is a better actor than Cain, which again says alot.

Let a competent writer or two handle it, and I'm certain it will work. It's worth a try, we have had five movies now that have went the opposite direction. In my opinion, it's time to switch it up.

Tom plays Clark as a real person, yet if he puts on a Superman suit.. there's no way everyone in Metropolis (Lex, Lois, Jimmy, Perry etc) wouldn't recognize him as Superman... unless he can mindwipe people.

Smallville kinda wrote itself into a hole in that regard.

Besides, I think it is safe to say that today's general audience doesn't care for the Donnerverse-esque Superman.

Bro, the gen audience will care for any Superman as long as there's thrilling action involved. Not that I want the Donner stuff again.


And for the last time, I'm not saying I want it done like Reeve's Clark. I consider Reeve's take on DP Clark to be subpar by modern standards.


The way Singer had Brandon play it is closer to how I want it. It makes it more believable that Clark and Superman are two different people..

While at the same time, it isnt slapstick and Clark isn't acting like a bumbling fool. He's just withdrawn.


Donner's DP Clark and Singer's DP Clark are different approaches.

 

[NotFadeAway]

When the character of Superman was first created, Siegel and Schuster gave him an awesome sense of humor. Give Clark a charming wit.

 

[afan]

As for the glasses...look, the fact that no one figures out he's Superman even though he's using such a simple disguise is sort of the point. It's the absurdity and the innocence of it that's half the charm. You suspend your disbelief. I don't think he needs "you don't know who I am power" or anything like that.

The glasses device isn't unique just to the Clark/Superman schtick. Glasses are also a classic device used to conceal beauty, i.e. the "plain Jane librarian type" who suddenly becomes a ravishing beauty when her glasses are removed.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Tom plays Clark as a real person, yet if he puts on a Superman suit.. there's no way everyone in Metropolis (Lex, Lois, Jimmy, Perry etc) wouldn't recognize him as Superman... unless he can mindwipe people.

Smallville kinda wrote itself into a hole in that regard.




Bro, the gen audience will care for any Superman as long as there's thrilling action involved. Not that I want the Donner stuff again.


And for the last time, I'm not saying I want it done like Reeve's Clark. I consider Reeve's take on DP Clark to be subpar by modern standards.


The way Singer had Brandon play it is closer to how I want it. It makes it more believable that Clark and Superman are two different people..

While at the same time, it isnt slapstick and Clark isn't acting like a bumbling fool. He's just withdrawn.


Donner's DP Clark and Singer's DP Clark are different approaches.

Knowing Smallville, everyone will lose there memory before the series ends. Thats just what they do.

And I don't think action scenes are the one and only cure for the Superman franchise. It's one of the issues, but it's not the only issue.

Like I said, you and I will always disgaree about this issue. It's cool....

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

An asteroid is on a collision course with Earth. Superman, though warned that even he may not be able to survive the attempt, rockets up into space to collide with the asteroid. The collision stops the asteroid in it's tracks placing it in orbit around Earth, but Superman is weakened and returns unbeknownst to Earth with amnesia. Thanks to Superman the asteroid is not a threat to hit Earth yet it still poses a catastrohic threat as it's gravitational pull is causing global devestation. The world desperately needs Superman. Yet he is no where to be found. Did he die in the collision?

Meanwhile Clark of course is also suffering with amnesia. Why is he wearing a strange costume under his clothes. Could he be this Superman every one is looking for. Is the costume the source of Superman's amazing powers? Finally Clark resolves that no matter who he may or may not be the world needs Superman. So he returns to carry an atomic bomb to the asteroid where he detonates it oblitterating the asteroid, saving the Earth, and recovering his memory in the bargain.

"Panic in the Sky" aired 12/5/1953
Yup.....high camp to be sure.

Congrats you named the one episode that's a stark contrast to the other episodes in the series.

I own the DVD sets of all the seasons, I know what I saw.


There's even evidence to support what I said in "Panic in the Sky."


Perry, Lois, Jimmy go to see Clark in bed and he's not wearing the glasses. Essentially he is indistinguishable from Superman; yet everyone still regards him as Clark while talking about Superman as a totally different entity.

It's just borderline ridiculous and silly. There's no way that would work in a serious big budget modern-day motion picture.

 

[NotFadeAway]

The glasses device isn't unique just to the Clark/Superman schtick. Glasses are also a classic device used to conceal beauty, i.e. the "plain Jane librarian type" who suddenly becomes a ravishing beauty when her glasses are removed.

Good point.

I can't count the number of times I've been told how different I look with my glasses off and on.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

And I don't think action scenes are the one and only cure for the Superman franchise. It's one of the issues, but it's not the only issue.

In regards to the general audience, action will always be the hook first and foremost.

They don't have the same awareness of Donnerverse, Precrisis, Postcrisis etc interpretations that we do.

 

[Nathan]

Why do you assume that just because people want Clark to act more like a certain portrayal, they want a carbon copy of every aspect?

"Movie Clark should be more like Dean Cain's Clark. Yes, including sillyness, camp and all."