The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[Mr. Earle]

Some think that they improved the original concept of the character.And if you think so, then there is no reason to complain because the character should change from time to time and adapt to the tastes of each era. If you think they made him worse, then just wait for their next retcon.

But based on your posts Kurosawa, even if they come up with something that even you consider better, you wouldnt want it since it wouldnt be what Siegel and Shuster wrote.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I think both sides of this debate can be too extreme. From the post-side, I hear, "that's Silver Age @#$%" as if having rhubarb pies with the Kents is an improvement, or "oh, it's what was in Donner." Yeah, so was the very concept of a superhero blockbuster. I mean, I used to be P.O.ed because Superman: the Movie was such a sacred cow, but I'm much more P.O.ed because it's become a scapegoat.

On the other hand, how did it "destroy any semblance of what Seigel and Shuster came up with?" He's still a guy in a blue costume and red cape who flies around trying to save people with his super strength. Not only that, but Byrne intended to make it more like what they came up with.

 

[not_a_victim]

Yeah, there is really nothing in that character to relate to at all unless you had everything handed to you on a silver platter and nothing ever went wrong. Superman should be somewhat relatable but Clark should be very easy to identify with. Not too many readers are going to identify with the star quarterback who dates the prettiest girl and is top in his profession and has a perfect perfect relationship with his perfect mom and dad who are still there for him even into his manhood. There's nothing there at all to grasp on to. Plenty to envy, though. Might explain why so many fans hold Superman in contempt.



Name one legendary heroic figure that does not have some sort of tragedy or pathos. And the tragedy and lesson of their loss didn't come first in the Donner film, it was first shown in Superman #161 (May, 1963) and The Amazing World of Superman (1973).


Read them, hated them. As for my other comment, you can't apply what is needed for heroic figures to real people.



They're just like Aunt May. But that's the problem.



Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook."

Yes, but for Kal-El, the tragedy and pathos starts not with the loss of John Kent, but with the destruction of his home planet, and the alienation (no pun intended) of how he feels on Earth, knowing he is so different.

It is exacerbated when he finds out his real parents, and everything about his life before Earth, is destroyed. That is the real source of tragedy and pathos in his life...at least in my opinion.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea with his birth parents and planet gone he loses his heirtage and not ever getting to know what krypton was like(to the likes of supergirl or phantom zone criminals and all that). That should be the only lose he has. With the kents being his anchor to his humanity and all that with them alive. Where we could have good scenes with them about how he grew up and to be where he blows his steam and all that. We dont have to see them all the time and all that.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah i think it' svery powerful if clark secretly hopes that some day he'll see his real parents or his people or something, but then that moment when he finally learns about the final fate of krypton, how his parents died, an entire family he'll never get to know, see that would be immensely powerful to see his reaction on screen, can you imagine the emmence loss you'd feel knowing you were the last of your kind. That would be powerful

 

[Daybreak_st]

It'd be nice if people would stop blaming specific writers or era's of the character and just focus on what elements of the character they like or dislike. Let the character have his own merit, and how well he's written speak for itself vs writing off any specific version b/c of preconceived prejudices against it.

 

[Kurosawa]

Some think that they improved the original concept of the character.And if you think so, then there is no reason to complain because the character should change from time to time and adapt to the tastes of each era. If you think they made him worse, then just wait for their next retcon.

But based on your posts Kurosawa, even if they come up with something that even you consider better, you wouldnt want it since it wouldnt be what Siegel and Shuster wrote.

Let's revamp Spider-Man in MOS manner.

Peter Parker will be a lithe, athletic, popular wideout on the football team and track star at the school. Liz Allen will be his closest friend and very interested in a romance with him. Once he becomes Spider-Man, she learns his secret and they begin a relationship. He decides from the counciling of his Uncle Ben to use his powers not for personal profit, but to fight crime. To help his Aunt and Uncle he gets a job at the Daily Bugle where he is regarded as the greatest photographer ever and wins many awards. So between working for the Bugle, going to school, helping his aunt and uncle with bills and juggling the attentions from Liz Allen and Betty Brant, Peter Parker fights crime as The Amazing Spider-Man!

Oh, we'll explain his powers in some sort of more scientifically acceptable manner, and Human Torch will regard him as an idiot and kick his ass regularly.

Now...how much like Lee and Ditko's character does that sound? I BET if someone who was as big a name now as Byrne was in 1986 did that, people would defend it.

 

[Mr. Earle]

First of all i never said i liked how Byrne made Clark perfect and a great athlete in school and all that. If i am not mistaken, Johns is actually changing that to a more Smallville like origin where he cant participate in sports because he might expose himself or hurt someone. That sounds a lot better and its basically the price Clark has to pay for his powers.

As for Pa Kent = Uncle Ben, i disagree. Uncle Ben's death is a defining moment for Spiderman, almost as much as the Wayne murder is to Bruce. Clark had already become Superman before it happened. Dealing with death and the limits of his powers is a valuable lesson but as i've said before, i'm sure Lex can provide that, although on a less personal way. By failing to save everyone in an accident Clark can learn the same lesson.

To me Pa Kent's death is too bitter, it reminds me of the miserable Donnerverse and pretty much ruins the Kent family and sinks it in sorrow. Is Clark ever going to be able to come back home and not get into a miserable scene with his mother about her loneliness and his father's death? And what kind of hero leaves his old mother all alone to work a farm?

I BET if someone who was as big a name now as Byrne was in 1986 did that, people would defend it.

I dont know Byrne besides the origin story that he did. I could care less if he is the next Shakespeare or a hack.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Let's revamp Spider-Man in MOS manner.

Lets put an orange peel on an apple as well.

Peter Parker will be a lithe, athletic, popular wideout on the football team and track star at the school. Liz Allen will be his closest friend and very interested in a romance with him. Once he becomes Spider-Man, she learns his secret and they begin a relationship. He decides from the counciling of his Uncle Ben to use his powers not for personal profit, but to fight crime. To help his Aunt and Uncle he gets a job at the Daily Bugle where he is regarded as the greatest photographer ever and wins many awards. So between working for the Bugle, going to school, helping his aunt and uncle with bills and juggling the attentions from Liz Allen and Betty Brant, Peter Parker fights crime as The Amazing Spider-Man!

I'm not convinced all that is the equivilent of not killing off the Kents.

Now...how much like Lee and Ditko's character does that sound? I BET if someone who was as big a name now as Byrne was in 1986 did that, people would defend it.

I BET the majority would not.

 

[Nightwing1983]

yea with his birth parents and planet gone he loses his heirtage and not ever getting to know what krypton was like(to the likes of supergirl or phantom zone criminals and all that). That should be the only lose he has. With the kents being his anchor to his humanity and all that with them alive. Where we could have good scenes with them about how he grew up and to be where he blows his steam and all that. We dont have to see them all the time and all that.

First, no matter how many sets of parents of his die, he doesn't "lose his heritage." He was still born on Krypton (or at-least conceived there) and he still grew up in Smallville.

Second, maybe I don't understand what you mean, but aren't Lana Lang, Pete Ross, Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, Cat Grant, select JLA teammates (if applicable) and even--in a "they're not all good" kind-of way--Lex Luthor and all the other Earthborn criminals he battles his "anchors to humanity?"

 

[Nightwing1983]

Let's revamp Spider-Man in MOS manner.

Peter Parker will be a lithe, athletic, popular wideout on the football team and track star at the school. Liz Allen will be his closest friend and very interested in a romance with him. Once he becomes Spider-Man, she learns his secret and they begin a relationship. He decides from the counciling of his Uncle Ben to use his powers not for personal profit, but to fight crime. To help his Aunt and Uncle he gets a job at the Daily Bugle where he is regarded as the greatest photographer ever and wins many awards. So between working for the Bugle, going to school, helping his aunt and uncle with bills and juggling the attentions from Liz Allen and Betty Brant, Peter Parker fights crime as The Amazing Spider-Man!

I could run through all of this, but doesn't the sheer fact that you're going in this direction hurt the notion that Byrne "turned Superman into a Marvel character?"

Now...how much like Lee and Ditko's character does that sound? I BET if someone who was as big a name now as Byrne was in 1986 did that, people would defend it.

Whatever rose colored glasses people saw Byrne through in 1986 have long since turned brown. Regardless, I do agree that to a lot of reboot defenders, it's the sheer fact that this version came out a few years after Superman: the Movie and made its share of arbitrary changes that were different from both the pre-Crisis comics and the movies (that's right: I said "the movies," not "the Donner movies") which lead to mixed reactions at the time, but were hailed as basically the way things ought to be by the time the '90s came to a close.

Part of it was the death issue, which was the second-best selling comics of all time (and the conclusion of the best-selling collected edition of all time), and easily the most talked about comic ever on shows like Entertainment Tonight. Part of it was Lois & Clark which was far from great, but showed us that you could have a Superman who wasn't a Chris-Clone. Part of it (maybe even most of it) was the animated series which owed much of its nomanclature (not all) to Man of Steel but certainly not all. And part of it was Superman Returns as if a psychological profile of Superman as seen in the pre-Crisis comics and the earlier films dictates that he would inevitably be a deadbeat dad (sorry), never fight any interesting and powerful villains, and that... um... they had to change the costume and Lois had to be played by someone who looked nothing like she did in the older films or any other version.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Since we're talking about dead parents:

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Since we're talking about dead parents:

ROTFLMAO does not even do this justice. I just had to wipe Dr. friggin Pepper off my laptop screen, asfter blasting out my nose.
This requires:

[YT]lb8fWUUXeKM[/YT]

 

[Kurosawa]

Since we're talking about dead parents:

And that's why Batman is #1 and Supes has become an irrelevant joke. Because the core of the character has been maintained. The core of Superman was twisted around completely when they got rid of Clark as the disguise and Superman as the reality.

 

[Nightwing1983]

And that's why Batman is #1 and Supes has become an irrelevant joke. Because the core of the character has been maintained. The core of Superman was twisted around completely when they got rid of Clark as the disguise and Superman as the reality.

I really don't think "Superman as irrelevant joke" is as universal as certain people say at times and I also don't think people who hate him would even notice this subtlety much less resent the fact that he's more down-to-Earth by being Clark first and Superman second.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

And that's why Batman is #1

Because...Superman made fun of him in a fan made cartoon picture?

and Supes has become an irrelevant joke.

No he hasn't.

Because the core of the character has been maintained.

And that is, his parents are dead? So we need to kill off the Kents right?

Or Bruce thinks of himself as Batman first Bruce second? So Clark should think of himself as Superman first, and Clark as just a disguise to?

That is what is going to make Superman more interesting? Those two things are going to make him #1 in all of comics again. Ok. Got it.

The core of Superman was twisted around completely when they got rid of Clark as the disguise and Superman as the reality.

I dissagree. They just wanted more investment in Clark as a character.

You don't think the lower sales with Superman are because of the way the stories are written do you?

Maybe have something to do with Batman's Villains being writen more interestingly, and not Nerfed like Superman's would it?

Nothing to do with people finding it easier to relate to a guy who is a human being, and not a mythic demigod?

 

[true316]

Yeah, there is really nothing in that character to relate to at all unless you had everything handed to you on a silver platter and nothing ever went wrong. Superman should be somewhat relatable but Clark should be very easy to identify with. Not too many readers are going to identify with the star quarterback who dates the prettiest girl and is top in his profession and has a perfect perfect relationship with his perfect mom and dad who are still there for him even into his manhood. There's nothing there at all to grasp on to. Plenty to envy, though. Might explain why so many fans hold Superman in contempt.

I agree that Clark should be easy to identify with. But I also think Superman can be VERY relatable if written correctly. Heck I think Howard the Duck could be relatable if written correctly. It's all in the presentation.

I really don't think "Superman as irrelevant joke" is as universal as certain people say at times and I also don't think people who hate him would even notice this subtlety much less resent the fact that he's more down-to-Earth by being Clark first and Superman second.

I used to think like this too but something happened that changed my mind. Superman Returns came out. And I remember asking people to go (general audience members). Typically when I ask people to go to the movies the response is, "Yeah sure, when?" This time it was, "Superman? I don't really like Superman." Seriously... there were no complaints about his belt buckle, or the S being to small, or having a kid. It was about the character himself. Too perfect.

I think you're right that most people are barely going to notice the change to Clark being who he is, but it is part of a larger problem that Bryne helped set in motion. Superman's life really does seem too perfect.

Superman can still be optimistic, idealistic, and virtuous even though some things don't go his way. I think it's important for the future of the character that this be kept in mind. When the audience perceives that everything comes easy to the lead character he WILL be irrelavent in their eyes. Because not everything comes easy to them.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I guess Kurosawa never read "World of Krypton". Superman clearly feels the loss of his real parents and Jor-el`s sacrifice to save him. He even cries. One more example that Kurosawa don`t know a thing he`s talking about.

 

[\S/JcDc\S/]

If you properly delve into his Kryptonian origins, and show him learning of the death of Jor-el and Lara, you can get the emotional impact. The problem would be if they don't show this moment and we ONLY relate to the Kents as his parents.

The new Star Trek movie opened it brilliantly, you saw Kirk's father die heroicly... and it carried the film in some ways. It made you put more interest in his own heroics, and motivations.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I guess Kurosawa never read "World of Krypton". Superman clearly feels the loss of his real parents and Jor-el`s sacrifice to save him. He even cries. One more example that Kurosawa don`t know a thing he`s talking about.

Which World of Krypton? There were two: one in 1978 and one in 1988.

It's a point of Super-shame that I never read either one.

 

[true316]

To me Pa Kent's death is too bitter, it reminds me of the miserable Donnerverse and pretty much ruins the Kent family and sinks it in sorrow. Is Clark ever going to be able to come back home and not get into a miserable scene with his mother about her loneliness and his father's death? And what kind of hero leaves his old mother all alone to work a farm?
I dont know Byrne besides the origin story that he did. I could care less if he is the next Shakespeare or a hack.

I don't think your view on this necessarily reflects real life. I don't know if you read my post awhile back about my friend who's father passed away. Anytime I spent time with her mom years later, the last thing I would describe the experience as, was "sunk in sorrow." She's a wonderfully kind woman who continues to work, do charity stuff, visit her daughter and son-in-law, and spend time with her friends. Is there real pain that she's had to face. Absolutely. But she's faced this hardship with grace and strength and I think Martha Kent would do the same.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Which World of Krypton? There were two: one in 1978 and one in 1988.

It's a point of Super-shame that I never read either one.

World of Krypton 1988 written by John Byrne.

 

[true316]

I guess Kurosawa never read "World of Krypton". Superman clearly feels the loss of his real parents and Jor-el`s sacrifice to save him. He even cries. One more example that Kurosawa don`t know a thing he`s talking about.

I can't speak for Kurosawa but I know I've never read the World of Krypton story you referenced. I just remember reading Bryne'a actual "Man of Steel" post crisis reboot. I actually grew up on the post crisis era which might surprise you. But anyway, in the last chapter when Clark finds about his real origin does he not refer to the legacy of Krypton as "ultimately meaningless?" I remember reading that and even as a kid I thought: "That's reaaallly cold." There were no tears shed then.

That's the main reason I've always perceived the destruction of Krypton to be of little consequence to him post crisis.

 

[Nightwing1983]

To me Pa Kent's death is too bitter, it reminds me of the miserable Donnerverse and pretty much ruins the Kent family and sinks it in sorrow.

Has Superman: the Movie really become such a scapegoat that it's considered "miserable" and that it's so unbearable that something simply reminds you of it?

That's why I started pushing for the loose sequel, too many people don't appreciate the film that made the movie industry realize that superhero films could be a big deal to begin with.

Furthermore, how does it "sink it in sorrow?" It's a standard Old-Lassie death! I mean, what is the Kent family except for Jonathan, Martha and Clark? It's not like he has a bunch of brothers and sisters or like we're ever introduced to aunts, uncles, cousins and stuff much (why is that)?

Is Clark ever going to be able to come back home and not get into a miserable scene with his mother about her loneliness and his father's death? And what kind of hero leaves his old mother all alone to work a farm?

lol, I thought Ben Hubbard was supposed to help out. But seriously: even in the post-Crisis universe, the Kents were portrayed as semi-retired. It's not like they were some major farming concern. Shouldn't she be collecting Social Security?

I dont know Byrne besides the origin story that he did. I could care less if he is the next Shakespeare or a hack.

That I can get behind.

 

[Kurosawa]

Because...Superman made fun of him in a fan made cartoon picture?



No he hasn't.



And that is, his parents are dead? So we need to kill off the Kents right?

Or Bruce thinks of himself as Batman first Bruce second? So Clark should think of himself as Superman first, and Clark as just a disguise to?

That is what is going to make Superman more interesting? Those two things are going to make him #1 in all of comics again. Ok. Got it.



I dissagree. They just wanted more investment in Clark as a character.

You don't think the lower sales with Superman are because of the way the stories are written do you?

Maybe have something to do with Batman's Villains being writen more interestingly, and not Nerfed like Superman's would it?

Nothing to do with people finding it easier to relate to a guy who is a human being, and not a mythic demigod?

No, Batman retains his popularity and importance because DC did not take him completely away from his original core concept. He is still based on vengeance, he is still a brilliant detective and a fearsome, intimidating creature of the night who funds his crusade with his considerable inherited wealth. Superman's original core was that he was the reality, Clark the construct, and that he was an independent adult with no family, the last survivor of a utopian planet with great powers, fighting for the oppressed and less fortunate. So with Batman they kept everything. With Superman they kept the powers and the last survivor side (which wasn't vital anyway or all the other Kryptonians they brought in would have hurt Superman's popularity, which they didn't), and even that they changed by making Krypton a decrepit cold planet that deserved to die.

And YES Superman SHOULD think of himself as Superman first and Clark as a disguise. Why? Because the guy that created him meant for it to be that way. Because it was that way for 50 YEARS and because when it was that way the series was more successful. And because it's more interesting as a concept. Every other character is the same person in and out of costume. Superman has a true dual identity. You don't see great directors having their characters discuss Peter Parker and Spider-Man in their films. Scholars don't write papers or books about the Batman/Bruce Wayne duality, since Bruce is clearly nothing but a front. The Superman/Clark Kent duality is on a completely different level than any other character and it's been a huge part of the characters success from day one. Even if people can't identify with Superman, they can identify with Clark because he is us. But if Clark is the true person, and Superman the act...then there is nothing to identify at all. Perfect human identity, perfect heroic identity. If anything Superman is the more identifiable of the two since he has been made an object of scorn and ridicule by so many of his peers. But it's not very satisfying to identify with a supposed hero who can't hold up his end of the deal. Not like it is to identify with Clark, who under the meek exterior is the greatest hero in the universe. That's a lot better character to identify with imo.

As for Batman's villains helping his sales, there is no doubt that they do, but there is also little doubt that one area they HAVE improved in the Superman comics Post-Crisis is the quality of the villains. Where they messed up with Superman is this: they kept Superman a demigod, but a very flawed one who lacked confidence and was sneered at by his peers, and THEN they made Clark almost as perfect as Superman but with a perfect home life and a perfect professional life and next to no conflict. There's simply nothing there to latch on to at all.

I don't realistically expect anyone to agree with me on these matters, however. All I'm really doing is saying my piece. I know that today's fans could honestly care less about guys like Siegel or Kirby or Bill Finger...to them they just did comics ages ago that are very lame and out of date now. It is what it is, I guess.