The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[Daybreak_st]

I think that line sums up your post better than any other, and is absolutely on point.

Thanks, i was just restating some of the great points you guys had already brought out.

To push the Clark situation out of the campy material that we've seen in the past, it might do well to approach Clark as a guy who's playing spy, like "Burn Notice"-type stuff; and he's gotten really good at it over time.

Never thought about it that way but makes perfect sense

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Like I said in the previous thread..

I'm willing to bet that Nolan WILL have Reporter Clark as an 'exaggerated persona' and act, not the real person.

Similar to "Playboy Bruce" being an act to throw people off from suspecting Bruce is Batman.



Personally, I think that's the most believable way to do it in live action. If you take out the slapstick of the Reeve version, it's perfect.



As far as Clark's visual appearance, the Horn-Rimmed glasses are a must for me. They go a long way in helping with the dual identities.

But obviously changes in wardrobe, posture, mannerisms, voice, hairstyle are all necessary too to pull this off.

 

[Webhead2006]

i still would like to see clark as the real person, and superman is just what he can and does do for the world.

 

[Daybreak_st]

You make a valid point and I can see Nolan approaching it that way but I don’t they should. Bruce Wayne’s playboy façade is something he only needs to employ on occasion. At parties, when in the public eye, etc. He’s not living his life day in and day out pretending to be something he’s not. He just needs to act that way sometimes.

Clark Kent is a completely different story. In his day-to-day life he is Clark kent. The people he surrounds himself with , his friends, know him as Clark. Superman really doesn’t have any friends especially if you’re talking about a world without other superheroes. Only people he interacts with are Lois and maybe Jimmy. But again that interaction is probably sparse at best.
The metropolis Clark needs by necessity to be his true persona, even if it’s somewhat toned down or he lets the geeky side of his personality out a bit more. Otherwise you’re telling me he pretends to be someone else 8 hours a day for the rest of his life, alienating his potential friends and to the scorn of co-workers who think he’s odd, or a coward or whatever. Makes no sense. Why do it? Bruce Wayne has to show his face publically every once in a while, so he has to be the playboy. Clark could just be superman 24-7 if he wanted. Or do a job that doesn’t require much interaction with people. Why be a reporter when you can just hover in space and hear whenever help is needed?

Makes much more sense logically if he enjoys being Clark, it’s pretty much his personality but not quite as heroic and maybe a little geeky (we all have various aspects of our personality that we let out depending on who we’re with or what we’re doing).

 

[Reel-Man]

I find the best moment where Clark seemed different from Superman that was captured on film was in Superman Returns. The scene right after meeting Lois on the Daily Planet rooftop, she comes back into the office and get's asked if she's been smoking, at that moment Clark turns around with this funny look and his mouth stuffed with take out food waiting to see what she's going to say. For me that small moment really stuck out.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

You make a valid point and I can see Nolan approaching it that way but I don’t they should. Bruce Wayne’s playboy façade is something he only needs to employ on occasion. At parties, when in the public eye, etc. He’s not living his life day in and day out pretending to be something he’s not. He just needs to act that way sometimes.

Clark Kent is a completely different story. In his day-to-day life he is Clark kent.

Actually no, Clark Kent employs the invented 'reporter' persona only in the Daily Planet primarily.


So it is something employed in public, as his public persona.. just as Bruce does the 'playboy' thing whenever Bruce is in public.


In private, both Clark and Bruce can be their true selves. It's a VERY similar tactic.



Clark can be his true self with his parents, Lana and the others that know his real identity, just as Bruce is his true self with Alfred, Fox etc


But with everyone else, they use those invented personas to throw them off.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Still gotta disagree with you. totally different senarios. Bruce doesn't sit in a office 8 hrs a day working with people pretending to be someone else. At least in the nolan films so far. he's seldom their. When bruce does go and work at Wayne Industry and as it was depicted in Batman Returns you get a much more "real" bruce and less playboy.

Clark is different, he's not the boss, can come in any time he wants etc. He's just clark kent working a regular shift like everyone else. I can imagine him going to work and if nothing big happens he's just doing his reporter thing all day long. His life is probably a lot more like what you see in lois and clark and smallville when it comes to working at the DP. In the movies you're given a slice of life so to speak that only focuses on when something big happens.

You are right about his parents and lana, and i think he is truest when with them. But on a day to day basis he probably only talks to them on the phone. And i'm not sure how much lana is even involved.

 

[Daybreak_st]

The metropolis Clark needs by necessity to be his true persona, even if it’s somewhat toned down or he lets the geeky side of his personality out a bit more. Otherwise you’re telling me he pretends to be someone else 8 hours a day for the rest of his life, alienating his potential friends and to the scorn of co-workers who think he’s odd, or a coward or whatever. Makes no sense. Why do it? Bruce Wayne has to show his face publically every once in a while, so he has to be the playboy. Clark could just be superman 24-7 if he wanted. Or do a job that doesn’t require much interaction with people. Why be a reporter when you can just hover in space and hear whenever help is needed?

Makes much more sense logically if he enjoys being Clark, it’s pretty much his personality but not quite as heroic and maybe a little geeky (we all have various aspects of our personality that we let out depending on who we’re with or what we’re doing).

See the bold parts, that's all i'm saying. He's around these people too much to be a phony the entire time. We all have different aspects of our personality. I'm different around my friends and family vs people at work vs strangers. We all are. My view is that clark simply shows different aspects of his personality depending on the situation. His truest self similar to bruce is when with his family. Superman is him at his heroic best. Clark is his geeky side (we all have one ).

 

[Daybreak_st]

Also name one person who bruce is close to that he acts like the playboy all the time with? Rachel and Fox know the truth. Also remember the scene when he's leaving the hotel in his playboy persona dripping wet. Notice the way he changes when he sees Rachel. How much he wants her to know that this isn't the real him. you remember that scene? It's easy for him to lie to people he's not close to. But clark is actually friends with the daily planet staff, at least Perry, Jimmy and Lois. Different situation. I can't see him completely living a lie, especially with lois, he'd have that same look that bruce has when he saw Rachel.

Simply put: for bruce it's occasional and he's not lying to anyone he's close to (except rachel and even that was only brief and he had a hard time doing it wanting to tell her the truth). Clark would be doing this to people he cares about, considers friends etc, and on a daily basis. I find that hard to fathom.

 

[Kurosawa]

Dean Cains Clark was brilliant as is Tom Wellings version...
For the new movie i'd like Clark to have a mixture of a lot of previous Clark elements,
He's a good looking bloke in very good shape, of course women are going to take notice of him (A'la Cat Grant in L&K) but i'd like Clark to aswell as being this big strong good looking bloke who makes the girls swoon also occasionally gives them reason to laugh at him too like, quoting his mother.. "Ma used to say...." etc

Basically he's the farmboy in the big city.

I am a huge opponent of the entire "Big blue boy scout" "naive hopeful farmboy" "smallville" Clark Kent/Superman. It's not what Jerry Siegel intended and it's not how Superman was ever handled for the first 50 years of his existence-the most successful years of the characters existence by far. Fpr 50 years, Superman was a confident urbanite and the farm was just his upbringing, not his reality. When his parents died (as most heroes need to lose their parents/mentors to become independent), he left the farm behind and became a man. Batman retains relevance because he still retains his core attributes, although the details have been changed. When DC turned the entire theme of Superman completely around, the character began to lose popularity, and more importantly, repeatability and relevance.

i still would like to see clark as the real person, and superman is just what he can and does do for the world.

Almost every other superhero is sat up that way-Spider-Man is Peter Parker in an out of costume, as is Daredevil, Flash, GL, etc. a HUGE part of what made Superman unique is that Superman is the reality and Clark the disguise. It's not an accident that when the wish fulfillment aspect of Superman was stripped away the character lost appeal and popularity. Jerry Siegel created Superman to be the reality and Clark the fiction. I think he knew his creation a lot more that a Marvel guy like Byrne.

 

[GreenKToo]

I think he should just be your average joe..the kind of guy that doesnt stand out in a crowd because he is so outspoken and everybody likes him, and at the same time, he shouldnt be such a geek that he draws attention to himself either. Somewhere in the middle is the ticket.

 

[Daybreak_st]

But note, a movie is different than a comic. A comic using devices like thought balloons or character narration to give us an inside peak at our heroes. Also the heroes interact with each other, giving us the chance to see more of their personalities.

A live action version of the character is different. For the most part they won't be interacting with other heroes nor will we be hearing internal monolouging. They need some type of a venue to clue the audience in how they're feeling, thinking, etc. Another character knowing they're secret gives them confidante to talk to.

If his parents are dead, and clark kent is a phony, how do you build a character that the audience will care about and inverst their emotions into?

How do you create that an audience will care about it that situation? I'm not saying it can't be done but it seems much more realistic to develop clark kent and let people enjoy his character as much as they can sit back and cheer for superman.

Otherwise you wind up with something like SR in which neither clark or supes were developed well. And you have to think what makes a good film and i doubt many people enjoy films in which the title character is hardly developed.

 

[Mindreaper21]

i still would like to see clark as the real person, and superman is just what he can and does do for the world.

Yes, this would be the correct approach. It's also the reason "Smallville" is succesful, because you feel for Clark and at times forget that he's not a human being. The way he interacts with people is his true personality and when its time for him to use his powers, he's more of a soldier.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I am a huge opponent of the entire "Big blue boy scout" "naive hopeful farmboy" "smallville" Clark Kent/Superman. It's not what Jerry Siegel intended and it's not how Superman was ever handled for the first 50 years of his existence-the most successful years of the characters existence by far. Fpr 50 years, Superman was a confident urbanite and the farm was just his upbringing, not his reality. When his parents died (as most heroes need to lose their parents/mentors to become independent), he left the farm behind and became a man. Batman retains relevance because he still retains his core attributes, although the details have been changed. When DC turned the entire theme of Superman completely around, the character began to lose popularity, and more importantly, repeatability and relevance.



Almost every other superhero is sat up that way-Spider-Man is Peter Parker in an out of costume, as is Daredevil, Flash, GL, etc. a HUGE part of what made Superman unique is that Superman is the reality and Clark the disguise. It's not an accident that when the wish fulfillment aspect of Superman was stripped away the character lost appeal and popularity. Jerry Siegel created Superman to be the reality and Clark the fiction. I think he knew his creation a lot more that a Marvel guy like Byrne.

You couldn`t be more wrong. The character lost popularity because in the movies, the incarnation people know the most, he was portrayed like you said, Superman as a god and Clark as a complete disguise, and nobody could relate or care for him. The numbers speak for itself. Spider-man, Batman did millions. Look at SR. Who cares for what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster did? The character had many creators over the years. If it was up to them, he would never have flown, Lex would still be a stupid scientist wanting to rule the world, he would be fighting nazis and all. Characters change and grow with time, become better to fit the social circunstances of the times.

 

[Webhead2006]

kuro i get why and understand your thoughts on liking the early roots take on the character. sure i dont know much of the early days superman. And like others have pointed out going the other way can help us make clark a real person and develop a personality and have a life with the dp crew, and other friends-assoicates. The being superman is his way of saving the world while giving protection to his clark life. So he can have a life besides being superman. Or like others have said why bother being clark at all if its all a ruse?

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

Still gotta disagree with you. totally different senarios. Bruce doesn't sit in a office 8 hrs a day working with people pretending to be someone else. At least in the nolan films so far. he's seldom their. When bruce does go and work at Wayne Industry and as it was depicted in Batman Returns you get a much more "real" bruce and less playboy.

Wrong, Bruce keeps the Playboy persona even at work. Remember how he was teaching the secretary golf, acting like a disinterested slacker with the CEO, falling asleep at meetings..

He maintains this invented personality in public with everyone who doesn't know that he's Batman.



Nolan will have Kal-El doing something similar with 'Clark Kent'

 

[Mindreaper21]

Wrong, Bruce keeps the Playboy persona even at work. Remember how he was teaching the secretary golf, acting like a disinterested slacker with the CEO, falling asleep at meetings..

He maintains this invented personality in public with everyone who doesn't know that he's Batman.



Nolan will have Kal-El doing something similar with 'Clark Kent'

You can't judge how Clark will be just by your observation of what Nolan did for Bruce. First of all, Nolan isn't directing the movie, he's just there to mentor the movie giving his creative opinion. Also, Bruce's situation is far different from Clark's. Bruce's parents had been killed right in front of him, so of course just like in real life given his situation, he would have identity issues. One would expect for someone like that to trust few people to be himself around, Alfred being one. Bruce is still finding out who he is and it is mentioned constantly throughout the series. Frank Millar's Bruce was also a "Billionaire Playboy", so I don't see a problem with that. Nolan used his resources...Clark is a completely different person with completely different situations and just like Bruce, his life will be seen from a realistic perspective.

 

[not_a_victim]

I, for one, want a dramatic difference between Clark and Supes. I think if you took the Chris Reeve Clark, and took just a little bit of the campiness out of it, that would be about perfect.
There needs to be a dramatic "hook" when "Clark" turns into Superman. He must go from being "Clark", to being Superman.
Clark Kent cannot be Superman sans costume. Some of the best dramatic moments in the first two Superman films was Kal-El choosing when to switch between Clark and Superman.
To whomever said that Clark is the real personna, and Superman is not, I fully disagree. A being that powerful that chooses to hide his true self the majority of the time is who Kal-El is. Kal-El is not Clark Kent, Clark Kent is how Kal-El chooses to present himself to humanity when he is not Superman.

 

[not_a_victim]

I, for one, want a dramatic difference between Clark and Supes. I think if you took the Chris Reeve Clark, and took just a little bit of the campiness out of it, that would be about perfect.
There needs to be a dramatic "hook" when "Clark" turns into Superman. He must go from being "Clark", to being Superman.
Clark Kent cannot be Superman sans costume. Some of the best dramatic moments in the first two Superman films was Kal-El choosing when to switch between Clark and Superman.
To whomever said that Clark is the real personna, and Superman is not, I fully disagree. A being that powerful that chooses to hide his true self the majority of the time is who Kal-El is. Kal-El is not Clark Kent, Clark Kent is how Kal-El chooses to present himself to humanity when he is not Superman.

 

[Kurosawa]

Yes, this would be the correct approach. It's also the reason "Smallville" is succesful, because you feel for Clark and at times forget that he's not a human being. The way he interacts with people is his true personality and when its time for him to use his powers, he's more of a soldier.

It was not the correct approach for the first 50 years of the characters existence, which were far and away his most successful period? News to me.

You couldn`t be more wrong. The character lost popularity because in the movies, the incarnation people know the most, he was portrayed like you said, Superman as a god and Clark as a complete disguise, and nobody could relate or care for him. The numbers speak for itself. Spider-man, Batman did millions. Look at SR. Who cares for what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster did? The character had many creators over the years. If it was up to them, he would never have flown, Lex would still be a stupid scientist wanting to rule the world, he would be fighting nazis and all. Characters change and grow with time, become better to fit the social circunstances of the times.

"Who cares what Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster did?" Come on, you know better than that.

To me, this is what DC's theft has led to. A castrated Superman with no depth that is just another generic Marvelized superhero. The fascinating Clark/Superman duality eliminated and Superman turned into the same guy in and out of costume. Just like Hal Jordan. Or Matt Murdock. Or Peter Parker, Ray Palmer, or any other number of characters. Just another face in the crowd. He's not even the first superhero anymore. What makes Clark Kent so interesting is a man who is a virtual god chooses to live a life of humility and sometimes humiliation. Kal-El lives many more of his days walking the streets of Metropolis as humble meek Clark Kent than he does soaring over them as godlike Superman. Why? Humility is a virtue. Without the escape of Clark Kent, his massive responsibilities would be too heavy even for him. Jules Feiffer got it. Tarantino (kinda) gets it. There are several reasons why Superman meant a lot more than Batman or any other superhero from 1938-1986, and this duality is the biggest reason and the worst decision that Byrne and DC made. Cutting his power level was okay-I don't care about that one way or another, and I love how they gave him more physical threats-but what they did with Clark killed the characters appeal to me and to many other people. I can't stand the Jethro Bodine big blue boy scout farmboy that DC has turned Supes into. Because it was damn well not what he used to be or was created to be.

Amazing. I don't think I have the words.

Do you know WHY Batman DESTROYS Supes in sales, relevance and popularity? Because DC was smart enough to stick with what made people care about him in the first place. DC changed the details with Batman but kept the core. With Superman they changed the details AND the core. And the further DC has taken Superman from his roots, the less important he has become, to the point where the ONLY reason WB/DC chose to develop a Superman movie is to keep the rights that they ripped off from Jerry and Joe in the first place.

Here's what happened to Batman when DC got away from the core:

And here's what they did to Superman:

Not that I couldn't post a ton of just insanely stupid Silver Age Superman covers, but of course my favorite Superman is the early Golden Age period:

And I'd take him back to that if he was mine. Badass, respected. Batman would NEVER get in his face and would INSTANTLY get his **** wrecked if he DARED to do so.

Anyway, my ramblings don't matter, it's not like they have sense enough to make a Superman movie that is faithful to or respects Siegel and Shuster anyway...they're too busy trying to continue ripping them off.

 

[super-t]

ooooo ya boy done came wit it!

 

[Mindreaper21]

I, for one, want a dramatic difference between Clark and Supes. I think if you took the Chris Reeve Clark, and took just a little bit of the campiness out of it, that would be about perfect.
There needs to be a dramatic "hook" when "Clark" turns into Superman. He must go from being "Clark", to being Superman.
Clark Kent cannot be Superman sans costume. Some of the best dramatic moments in the first two Superman films was Kal-El choosing when to switch between Clark and Superman.
To whomever said that Clark is the real personna, and Superman is not, I fully disagree. A being that powerful that chooses to hide his true self the majority of the time is who Kal-El is. Kal-El is not Clark Kent, Clark Kent is how Kal-El chooses to present himself to humanity when he is not Superman.

Yeah, but before he even knew that he was Kal-El, he was Clark Kent. He couldn't fake that, which makes that his true personality. He had to accept being Kal-El and the responsibilities that came with it. Being Superman gives him the opportunity to do ALL that he can to protect people. No one says that Superman or Kal-El is not part of his persona, but he grew up as Clark Kent learning how to be as good a person as he is. If Kal-El would have been found by the Luthor's or a family with bad morals, there would be no Superman. You're pretty much saying that "Clark Kent" is an identity, but that would mean he's been living a lie for most of his life, and that makes no sense at all.

 

[Webhead2006]

that is how i see it a bit mindreaper21

 

[Webhead2006]

dam double post.

 

[Mindreaper21]

edit.