The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[Adenjo]

Personally i'd like both parents to be alive and well.
The way I see it is this way..
At the planet Clark has to hide Superman.
As Superman he has to hide Clark.
At home with the Kents he doesn't have to hide anything, he can be himself.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I personally love the idea of his parents being around into his adult years. I've loved how, post-crisis, he's been able to go to them to just unwind and be someone other than the world hero for a few minutes. They're also excellent devices for us to see into Clark's thoughts as well as for exposition purposes. When he shares his inner feelings with them, the writer is really giving the viewers the 'thought balloons' from the comics. The fact that they also add flavour and texture to the tapestry is that added bonus.

It's another reason why I like the costume to be of Earthly origins. He can go back to Martha to have her repair of provide new.

I think that Seigel and Shuster killed them off mainly to keep the supporting cast to what they cold manage. With them gone they only had to deal with Metropolis and the main three: Lois, Perry, and Jimmy. They were writing books mainly for kids and, back then, the less you complicated a story, the easier it was for kids to follow. The fanbase is much older now and that simplicity is actually detrimental to a modern audience used to much more complex entertainment.

The early films actually kept Martha alive though we didn't really see her. BTW, the absolute best scene in the animated movie Superman: Doomsday was the scene with Lois and Martha after Clark's 'death'.

Also - DC discovered that the Kent's were the most popular parts of the Superboy books. When they did away with Superboy, the powers that be decided keeping them alive was desirable.

I agree 1000%

They killed them off because they understood, as writers of heroic fiction do, that ultimately the hero has to be alone. Keeping them alive keeps Superman perpetually Superboy, running home to momma whenever times get tough. Harry Potter doesn't get to run home to momma. Luke has to face Vader alone.

But he doesnt do that when times get rough. If anything i think he hides most of his problems because they re old people now.
He does face his villains alone. How could a farmer and his wife tell him how to fight Lex or Brainiac?

To me it makes Superman less tragic than Batman

Its not a competition.

Byrne turning Superman into a Marvel character

I might be wrong but Marvel characters are supposed to be more human and troubled while DC characters are supposed to be too perfect. Shouldnt that make him more DC than Marvel?

I also feel the scene where he realizes that with all his powers, he still couldn't save them...is essential. He couldn't do anything to help Krypton for obvious reasons, and he couldn't save his Earth parents either...even his power has limits. Losing them made him a man.

Well yeah, but i'd rather have a happier Superman with heartwarming moments. Leave misery to Batman.


Btw, everyone is complaining that Byrne made Clark too happy and perfect and maybe that's the case. Perhaps Johns will get the balance right? Not everything going Clark's way but not having a batmanesque Clark either?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Additionally, it's only your opinion that tragedy is the only real mark of a hero and the amount of it makes you a greater hero. My parents are both alive ... by your standards I don't qualify as a man. Being a Man isn't something that's thrust on you, it's the decisions you make. Same here for Clark. He doesn't become a hero to offset something terrible in his life but, rather, as a conscious choice. THAT, to me , MAKES Clark a man AND a hero.

A million times this!

 

[Nightwing1983]

I might be wrong but Marvel characters are supposed to be more human and troubled while DC characters are supposed to be too perfect. Shouldnt that make him more DC than Marvel?

A little too DC.

But seriously: Byrne himself denied that he was trying to "Marvelize" Superman, so I don't see where Kurosawa's going with this.

 

[Webhead2006]

Clark Kent Glasses look(solid black color i would like):

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

 

[Dark Knight]

I personally love the idea of his parents being around into his adult years. I've loved how, post-crisis, he's been able to go to them to just unwind and be someone other than the world hero for a few minutes. They're also excellent devices for us to see into Clark's thoughts as well as for exposition purposes. When he shares his inner feelings with them, the writer is really giving the viewers the 'thought balloons' from the comics. The fact that they also add flavour and texture to the tapestry is that added bonus.

It's another reason why I like the costume to be of Earthly origins. He can go back to Martha to have her repair of provide new.

I think that Seigel and Shuster killed them off mainly to keep the supporting cast to what they cold manage. With them gone they only had to deal with Metropolis and the main three: Lois, Perry, and Jimmy. They were writing books mainly for kids and, back then, the less you complicated a story, the easier it was for kids to follow. The fanbase is much older now and that simplicity is actually detrimental to a modern audience used to much more complex entertainment.

The early films actually kept Martha alive though we didn't really see her. BTW, the absolute best scene in the animated movie Superman: Doomsday was the scene with Lois and Martha after Clark's 'death'.

Also - DC discovered that the Kent's were the most popular parts of the Superboy books. When they did away with Superboy, the powers that be decided keeping them alive was desirable.

Dennis Quaid and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent!

 

[Dark Knight]

Clark Kent Glasses look(solid black color i would like):

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

#6 on the bottom would be a good way to go.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea that is a good one i think too, also 3, 4, 5 are not that bad looking either.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Are we really picking the glasses?

 

[Kurosawa]

I agree that Clark's life shouldn't be perfect. One of the issues I have with Bryne's take was that it seemed to remove ALL the hardship from Superman's life. Krypton was depicted as a place where it seemed unusual for a husband to tell his wife that he loved her. You almost feel good for Kal-El that he gets spared that life. Clark was also the football star in high school (with ease of course). When he gets to the Daily Planet he's a popular, award winning journalist and ultimately marries the girl of his dreams. When he's Superman he gets parades thrown in his honor. And if he doesn't know what to do he can go home to Smallville for apple pie and sage advice on how to be a superhero from his loving parents who are both alive. It sounds like a perfect existence.

And that's a problem. I would say one of Bryne's main goals was to make Superman more relatable. However, life isn't perfect. Life is full of obstacles but it is also full of the overcoming of obstacles. If you have a hero that doesn't really have big obstacles to overcome it can be hard to, dare I say it... relate to him. It that sense, I think Bryne had exactly the opposite effect that he had hoped to have.

I wouldn't kill both parents but I would allow Jonathan Kent to die. I just think its a powerful way to connect Clark to the rest of us. It wouldn't be from some supervillain bent on revenge or a meteor falling out of the sky. It would be something like a heart attack or a stroke. I remember when the father of one of my friends had multiple strokes. She was a senior in high school at the time and was understandably devastated. He had serious health issues after that and a couple of years later he passed away. I remember being a groomsman at her wedding some time later and the feeling I had as I watched her mother give her away. That's life. It isn't always perfect. But we face up to it and deal with the tough things as well as the pleasant things.

A hero who doesn't have at least some palpable hardship in his life seems unrelatable to me.

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.

Brother, I don't want to get into a fight with you but this is only your opinion. There are quite a few stories of heroes whose parents aren't killed off .... and remain quite heroic. And, as I pointed out earlier, Martha Kent wasn't killed off in most versions.

Superman doesn't need to be a tragic figure. In fact, he can work much better as a character if he isn't. He would be the antithesis of Bruce/Batman who can only be a tragic figure. There are many other ways Clark can learn that his abilities aren't always the solution. BTW, the argument you posed - that with all his powers, he couldn't save them was an invention of the Donner film - not of Seigel & Shuster. And, again, Martha was left alive so it wasn't couldn't save them - it was couldn't save HIM - meaning Jonathan Kent. soes that somehow making half as tragic?

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).

Clark wasn't running home to Momma to solve problems for him. It was his chance to reconnect with his humanity ... his roots .. and feel grounded. He used it to clear his head. Did you completely avoid the Byrne era of the books?

Additionally, it's only your opinion that tragedy is the only real mark of a hero and the amount of it makes you a greater hero. My parents are both alive ... by your standards I don't qualify as a man. Being a Man isn't something that's thrust on you, it's the decisions you make. Same here for Clark. He doesn't become a hero to offset something terrible in his life but, rather, as a conscious choice. THAT, to me , MAKES Clark a man AND a hero.

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

Thanks for the info, i really appreciate it.


His parents barely interfere anymore. If anything, Alfred interferes more than them. I'd leave them alive just so i could use them for heartwarming scenes when Clark visits them. Its not like they can give him much advise on his superman job.
"Hey son i think you should try beating Brainiac this way."

They are there like Aunt May is to Peter. They serve as his home, his nest. Kents, the farm and Krypto are some of the best elements of the mythos for me. I cant stand a miserable Superman.

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

A little too DC.

But seriously: Byrne himself denied that he was trying to "Marvelize" Superman, so I don't see where Kurosawa's going with this.

Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook."

 

[SuperDaniel]

Superman doesn`t have a tragedy in his life. That`s what makes him better than EVERY HERO.

Kurosawa, HAVE YOU EVER READ SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS?

"I could`ve done more" is a thousand times more effective than "I have all these powers and i couldn`t save him".

In fact, the 2nd way, as portrayed in the Donner movies, every goddamn character origin, IS EXACTLY what happened to Spider-man and, in your opinion, any MARVEL character.

Byrne actually made him DIFFERENT than a MARVEL character and more SPECIAL and only YOU cannot understand this due to your own prejudices and lack of understanding of the post-crisis era.

He is who he is out of his conscious choice. To make this world a better place.

Not because somebody died in his life.

THAT`S WHY HE IS THE BEST AND ONE AND ONLY.

That`s what sets him apart from every hero.

I don`t know where you going with this BS idea that someone`s parents need to die in order for them to be adults. This is so OUTRAGEOUS to me that i really won`t go in detail. Personally, I want my parents to live at least 50 more years and my whole life if it was possible. That doesn`t make me less of a man for wanting that.

I have my job, my career, pay my bills with no help from my parents. I`m happy and blessed to have them around simply because I love them. I live very far away from them now, at least 10 thousand miles away, so i appreciate any time i have with them. Or any member of my family, for that matter.

 

[Kurosawa]

Superman doesn`t have a tragedy in his life. That`s what makes him better than EVERY HERO.

Kurosawa, HAVE YOU EVER READ SUPERMAN FOR ALL SEASONS?

"I could`ve done more" is a thousand times more effective than "I have all these powers and i couldn`t save him".

In fact, the 2nd way, as portrayed in the Donner movies, every goddamn character origin, IS EXACTLY what happened to Spider-man and, in your opinion, any MARVEL character.

Byrne actually made him DIFFERENT than a MARVEL character and more SPECIAL and only YOU cannot understand this due to your own prejudices and lack of understanding of the post-crisis era.

He is who he is out of his conscious choice. To make this world a better place.

Not because somebody died in his life.

THAT`S WHY HE IS THE BEST AND ONE AND ONLY.

That`s what sets him apart from every hero.

I don`t know where you going with this BS idea that someone`s parents need to die in order for them to be adults. This is so OUTRAGEOUS to me that i really won`t go in detail. Personally, I want my parents to live at least 50 more years and my whole life if it was possible. That doesn`t make me less of a man for wanting that.

I have my job, my career, pay my bills with no help from my parents. I`m happy and blessed to have them around simply because I love them. I live very far away from them now, at least 10 thousand miles away, so i appreciate any time i have with them. Or any member of my family, for that matter.

Of course in real life I don't wish for anyone to lose their parents. In heroic fiction, the hero must have some sort of loss or pain or they are a Dudley Do Right joke and that is what Byrne made Superman into when he took all pathos from Superman's life. In real life, everyone has some degree of tragedy and suffering. His Superman had none since Krypton didn't matter and in fact was made so despicable that in the words of Wendy Pini, it "deserved to be destroyed." Simply put, his Superman AND his Clark Kent are superior in every way, physically, morally, spiritually AND they never lose anything that is close to them..there is simply nothing there.

Not a huge fan of Superman For All Seasons since I dislike the Byrne character and I don't like Sale's art at all, especially his Superman Colossus in Superman's costume. I do respect Loeb, though, and would like to see him handle a more classic Superman instead of Byrne's New Coke abomination.

 

[Nightwing1983]

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.

People who hold Superman in contempt don't deserve to be called "fans" of comics or the superhero genre. Just sayin'.

Still: I think you've hit on something that plagues fandom. I would argue that the Clark who sees himself as an Earthling first, doesn't moon over a lost planet and doesn't pretend to be a bumbling nerd is somewhat more relatable. BUT as you say, he's the star quarterback (terrible idea), and all that doesn't quite make him all that relatable to your average nerd. It's almost as if fandom tends to forget that different people find different things "relatable."

[QUOTEName 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). [/QUOTE]

Not only do I agree, but I'd go you one further: it was first shown in Superman Vol 1 #1 (some month, 1939), though not lavished upon in great detail.

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

I Still maintain that Byrne's run on the Superman books was great but flawed. I feel those who "hate" them are overreacting; but the rest of Superfandom who see it as not only good, not only a work of genius, but a point before which everything was just crap... that, to me, is the mentality that threatens to ruin a mass appreciation for Superman's history.

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

They're not constantly ailing and at death's doorstep. And if they were, wouldn't that be... tragic?

Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook."

Well, whatever. All I know is that his comeback to being accuse of "Marvelizing" them was, "that assumes that DC has no good characters and needs to be Marvelized," though I guess you could counter, "that assumes that your revised Superman was good and prior to that reboot, he wasn't.

Sadly, too many fans make that assumption.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Please people stop saying that you don't want superman to be like every other superhero blah blah blah then in the same sentence say you want both his parents dead. Just stop. That is the most cliched device in superhero comics, period. You know it, i know, everyone on this board knows it. Superman having both or one of his parents alive is "different" from most other characters. And having your parents alive just like in real life doesn't mean you've never experience any type of tradgedy in life. no clark shouldn't have a perfect life but good grief "his parents need to die so he'll be man" is the single dumbest argument i've seen on these boards...ok maybe not the dumbest but it's in the top two.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Please people stop saying that you don't want superman to be like every other superhero blah blah blah then in the same sentence say you want both his parents dead. Just stop. That is the most cliched device in superhero comics, period.

No, having the death of his parents being part of his motivation for becoming the hero is the most clichéd device in superhero comics. Just the fact that they're dead is a happenstance, and furthermore, was the way it was for the first 48 years. Now, I'm not saying it was better that way, but I fail to see how it's necessary for Pa Kent to be alive.

You know it, i know, everyone on this board knows it. Superman having both or one of his parents alive is "different" from most other characters.

I'm sure if I researched it, I could find enough heroes whose parents either are alive or could be (i.e. they don't say one way or the other); but even if he is one of only a handful, it's not exactly a hook that resonates throughout the ages or whatever.

And having your parents alive just like in real life doesn't mean you've never experience any type of tradgedy in life. no clark shouldn't have a perfect life but good grief "his parents need to die so he'll be man" is the single dumbest argument i've seen on these boards...ok maybe not the dumbest but it's in the top two.

I'm not gonna argue with it; but I still think some people just latch on to every change Byrne made in Man of Steel and try to rationalize it.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Please people stop saying that you don't want superman to be like every other superhero blah blah blah then in the same sentence say you want both his parents dead. Just stop. That is the most cliched device in superhero comics, period. You know it, i know, everyone on this board knows it. Superman having both or one of his parents alive is "different" from most other characters. And having your parents alive just like in real life doesn't mean you've never experience any type of tradgedy in life. no clark shouldn't have a perfect life but good grief "his parents need to die so he'll be man" is the single dumbest argument i've seen on these boards...ok maybe not the dumbest but it's in the top two.

Yes, the dead parents is already a cliche. Heck, he already HAS two dead parents. They kill off the Kents, and now he has a double cliche.

By having his Parents alive it can allow him to show more emotion than what he can show as Superman or Clark in Metropolis.

This is important to let the audience put in emotional investment. Seeing him as a son, or seeing his parents watching him fighting a giant monster on TV, not knowing if he will make it, can be a powerful scene.

 

[Daybreak_st]

No, having the death of his parents being part of his motivation for becoming the hero is the most clichéd device in superhero comics. Just the fact that they're dead is a happenstance, and furthermore, was the way it was for the first 48 years. Now, I'm not saying it was better that way, but I fail to see how it's necessary for Pa Kent to be alive.



I'm sure if I researched it, I could find enough heroes whose parents either are alive or could be (i.e. they don't say one way or the other); but even if he is one of only a handful, it's not exactly a hook that resonates throughout the ages or whatever.



I'm not gonna argue with it; but I still think some people just latch on to every change Byrne made in Man of Steel and try to rationalize it.

Please don't misunderstand my rant. I'm not saying it's wrong to have his father die, as it can provide some motivation. but the argument that somehow his parents need to be dead is just cliche and forced! How about we focus on simply writing a good, solid character, one that the audience can invest some emotions into, how about that people? Yet all you read is "his parents need to die" "every hero needs to have dead parents" etc. No, his parents, alive or dead do not make or break the character.

As you said it worked for a long period of time with his parents dead. Well it's worked for the past 20 or so years with them alive. What do we learn? It can work either way. I'd venture to say though, that those early stories seldom delved into clark kent apart from superman other than at the daily planet. Like supermike says, and i've been saying all along, in live action you need a way for the audience to see the character, full person, to hear inner thoughts, etc, that's why alfred works so well in the batman movies and provides some of the best character moments for bruce. Clark needs the same outlet, his parents would serve that pretty well.

I actually think that the line in superman the movie, "all those things i can do, all those powers, and i couldn't even save him" is incredibly powerful. Love the scene. So if having pa kent die leads to character moments like that, fine. But the idea that they must die is just silly.

in a movie setting i'd be hesitent about killing him off again, and trying to make ma more important for no other reason than it would parallel aunt may a little too much. It was cool in lois and clark to see both his parents. It can work either way people, but if you want some solid character moments like the ones we've seen with bruce and alfred keep them alive this time around.

 

[Kurosawa]

See, this is where you guys get it wrong. The Kents being dead isn't a motivation. He had already chosen the path of fighting for good before they died. It's a LESSON, and the lesson is that no matter how powerful he is, there are limits to even what he can do.

And all great heroic characters have some sort of loss or pain or conflict in their lives that makes them connect with people. The 5th guy off the bench in X-Force or something might not, but the big boys all do. Byrne's character had...nothing. Krypton's destruction was nothing to him, the Kents were alive, he never had to hide himself or feel out of place as a kid growing up, and as an adult he had it all. The character simply had no soul.

 

[Daybreak_st]

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).

Not only do I agree, but I'd go you one further: it was first shown in Superman Vol 1 #1 (some month, 1939), though not lavished upon in great detail.

See this is what i'm talking about. His loss is suppose to be his entire civizilation. The tradgedy is his parents sending off their young child to an unknown fate, something they will never know. They're trying to give him the best possible chance by sending him to earth, the one place where he'll have an advantage. That is plenty of tradgedy folks!

His earthly parents, are suppose to be loving and kind, provide him a nice home, and serve as moral support through his heroic character arc. I see your point, and i was misunderstanding you Kuro. It can provide a powerful lesson. I think there are other ways to go about it though, like there's an episode in season one of smallville (like or not it's done a few things right). There's a little boy clark has befriended who it turns out has a brain tumor. Clark tries to do everything in his power even racing the boy at top speed to see specialists etc. but to no avail. In the end he has to accept that no matter how many powers he has he can't save everyone. It was a very powerful but sad episode. I believe the last scene of clark and the kid is after clark's told there is nothing that can be done for the kid, his mom just encourages him to be the kids friend until the end. Clark and the boy take a balloon ride together. See that to me was powerful, sad, tragic, but also gave him a valuable lesson.


Again i don't agree with byrne making clark have a perfect life, and i don't mind him being athletic but the notion of him being the star of everything in life is unrelatable. Also i've seen it in few comics, he's in high school, on any number of sports teams, but he does have his powers, he can fly, etc. That is just wrong. I can't accept a clark kent who would knowingly use his powers for personal gain, popularity etc.

I don't mind if clark was on the jv team of some sport and did well, was athletic etc. Then being in stressful situations his powers started to emerge. It scares him enough to not put others in danger by playing sports etc. That's my take on it at least.

 

[Kurosawa]

See this is what i'm talking about. His loss is suppose to be his entire civizilation. The tradgedy is his parents sending off their young child to an unknown fate, something they will never know. They're trying to give him the best possible chance by sending him to earth, the one place where he'll have an advantage. That is plenty of tradgedy folks!

His earthly parents, are suppose to be loving and kind, provide him a nice home, and serve as moral support through his heroic character arc. I see your point, and i was misunderstanding you Kuro. It can provide a powerful lesson. I think there are other ways to go about it though, like there's an episode in season one of smallville (like or not it's done a few things right). There's a little boy clark has befriended who it turns out has a brain tumor. Clark tries to do everything in his power even racing the boy at top speed to see specialists etc. but to no avail. In the end he has to accept that no matter how many powers he has he can't save everyone. It was a very powerful but sad episode. I believe the last scene of clark and the kid is after clark's told there is nothing that can be done for the kid, his mom just encourages him to be the kids friend until the end. Clark and the boy take a balloon ride together. See that to me was powerful, sad, tragic, but also gave him a valuable lesson.


Again i don't agree with byrne making clark have a perfect life, and i don't mind him being athletic but the notion of him being the star of everything in life is unrelatable. Also i've seen it in few comics, he's in high school, on any number of sports teams, but he does have his powers, he can fly, etc. That is just wrong. I can't accept a clark kent who would knowingly use his powers for personal gain, popularity etc.

I don't mind if clark was on the jv team of some sport and did well, was athletic etc. Then being in stressful situations his powers started to emerge. It scares him enough to not put others in danger by playing sports etc. That's my take on it at least.

But Byrne made his Krypton cold and heartless and made it a non factor in his character's life since he was Clark Kent, country boy, not Superman, Kryptonian. So he lost nothing. He would regard the loss of life as tragic just as we would view a natural disaster or a plane crash as tragic but not personally painful.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Yeah i see what you're saying. Yeah he screwed up a lot of things about superman. I want him to feel the loss of his parents and home world.


On a different note, i'm just going to throw this out there. I support the idea that his powers developed gradually over time, vs appearing as soon as he landed on earth. Why? A few reasons.

1) I think a child with his strength and abilities would've killed the kents on accident. Just look at one particular superman pastiche, Hyperion from supreme power comic. He accidently incernerates his pet puppy when the dog growls at him (i don't approve of the graphic nature of the comic but i've seen enough to get the basics of the story). See that is a very real possiblity of a young child/infant. A baby can't even control going potty, or drooling, i think a kid like that having super powers is just too out there.

2) growing up without powers would give clark the chance to have some level of athletic ability outside of his powers. I really don't like the idea that superman is only his powers. I think it's his never give up spirit. That even if every other hero is down for the count superman will keep fighting until the end (like what happened with doomsday). That being said, functioning without powers as a young man could teach him some of those lessons. I for one hate the scenes in the films when clark loses his powers and all of sudden is a punching bag for someone (superman 2 and SR). I understand in superman 2 why it was there, i just don't like it. Also it begs the question how can he go up against someone like general zod, who's a trained soldier with his identical powers and come out on top without any fighting ability? They'd be on equal footing having the same powers, almost like two humans facing off. Sure they both have powers, but it would boil down to who was the better fighter and i think a trained soldier would have the advantage over a civilian.

Also he's constantly facing off against other people at his level or higher, so he needs to have some fighting ability outside of his powers. I'm not suggesting anything crazy, like martial arts (JJ Abrams what were you thinking ) but something like greco roman wrestling. Like maybe clark was on the jv wrestling team before his powers emerged or his dad was teaching him. Something to give him a basic skillset. Also i like the greco roman wrestling thing b/c it invokes the idea of ancient strongmen, like atlas, hercules, or samson. Just my thoughts.

Alternatively he could just be trained in the fortress so this maybe a mute point.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

See, this is where you guys get it wrong.

I do not agree.

The Kents being dead isn't a motivation. He had already chosen the path of fighting for good before they died.

I agree.

It's a LESSON, and the lesson is that no matter how powerful he is, there are limits to even what he can do.

He cannot learn that some other way? Maybe like in Birthright traveling the world to do good, and learns he cannot stop the nature of humans by trying to stop a conflict with two waring African tribes?

And all great heroic characters have some sort of loss or pain or conflict in their lives that makes them connect with people.

Given that he has already lost his real parents and entire race, and planet....which brings me to...

Krypton's destruction was nothing to him,

Because he has people in his life that love him means no sense of loss? He had a good childhood, and found out as a young man that his entire home world was destroyed, one that he would now never know. I have seen nothing to convince me that is was nothing to him.

the Kents were alive, he never had to hide himself or feel out of place as a kid growing up, and as an adult he had it all.

I disagree. Just because he has people in his life who loved him as he grew up does not mean he never had to feel "out of place". He probably had to do a great deal of work to hide his power from everyone else. He only had two people on earth that knew his secret or that he felt he could trust, and that was his adoptive parents.

The character simply had no soul.

I do not agree.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Even though Smallville is a piece of crap, i really felt that Clark had it rough already before his dad died. He couldnt participate in sports (he might hurt someone or expose himself), he felt different and alone, he was afraid to tell his girlfriend of his alien nature out of fear of her being disgusted with him, he was afraid to have sex with her, etc. Clark isnt just adopted. He is adopted by another species on another planet.

Even in the comics, the arrival of Supergirl was shown to mean so much to him. Batman was skeptical about her and was afraid that she would be a threat, but Clark was so happy that couldnt care less. With her around he now feels that he has someone who can understand him, a relative from his lost family he never met.

While killing his father would give him the emotional journey that Kurosawa suggests, i really dont think he needs it. Lex can easily prove to him that his powers arent enough. He's going to learn that he cant save everybody anyway, even if it isnt his dad.

Honestly, I just enjoy the Kent family moments too much to care.

 

[Webhead2006]

i agree with your posts supermike and day.

 

[Kurosawa]

Well, I'm obviously not going to agree but then again the character I like is basically a completely different character anyway. They only share a name and a visual. DC more or less destroyed any semblance of the character Siegel and Shuster created in 1986, although they still of course profit off the name.