The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[Mindreaper21]

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.



"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.

You have valid points, but just going back to this version would not sit well with many people. Superman's advantage is that he has a long history, so I'm sure that the Siegel and Shuster years would not be completely dismissed. This is why I'm glad Nolan is overseeing the production because he will go all the way to the first appearance through the entire history and bring out the most appealing elements. This is still a new vision of Superman that we're getting, so this movie has alot of potential to become something greater than we imagine, while still keeping a level of respect of Superman's history.

 

[Daybreak_st]

My point was simply this: Bruce Wayne is the boss, he can come and go as he pleases and he has no close friends at work or in the public eye in which he has to be the playboy around. His relationship with people at work is remote at best.

Also I was talking about Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton, when Bruce meets with Christopher Walken. He certainly is a more “real” bruce wayne. If you have a brief scene here or there, its easy to get away with the playboy thing, and the majority of time you still see bruce with Alfred or fox or someboy who he can be himself with.

Clark pretty much has the daily planet staff as supporting characters. Especially if you’re going with his parents are dead idea. If you want to actually make those characters interesting then you need to do something more akin to Lois and Clark and let those relationships develop so that people actually care what happens to them. I don’t think any other property has done a better job of that than Lois and Clark.

I agree that his truest self is when he’s with someone who knows his identity. Just make sure you can show that in the film so people can actually like the character.

Clark Kent has friends at the daily planet, coworkers he works side-by-side with. Him living a lie around them is like the scene I described when bruce saw Rachel and immediately wanted to tell her the truth.

For what it’s worth Lois and Clark was made for the general audience not the fanboys. It was written as a romantic comedy that featured lois and clark. It excelled not at the superman aspect but on the relationships at the daily planet and with clark’s parents. The average person enjoyed the show b/c of exactly that.

If you want an audience invest their emotions in fictional characters on screen then you have to give them something other than a guy flying around on screen not saying anything. That’s what SR gave us.

 

[Kurosawa]

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.

There is a huge difference between the Clark Kent he grew up us as and the Clark Kent he has had to pretend to be. He's used that persona to mask his powers since childhood, even if he isn't Superboy.

 

[Webhead2006]

well for me like i said i would perfer to go with the clark is real person, and superman is just what he can do with his powers. So he could have a life outside of being superman. Cause really if the clark kent persona is going to be a total lie when ever he is around anyone as clark. There is no real point in my mind for the clark kent character then. HE should just be full time superman at that rate. As for the kents i would perfer to see them alive like lois and clark show did. Now u dont need to have him going home all the time. But it could be times he would speak to his parents about things, and they could help him create the superman persona/look before he goes to metropolis for the first time. and then he could have a nice regular relationship with them and then if over the course of the film series if we get sequels to this superman 3.0 for lois to go with clark to smallville and met his parents or they come to the big city for a visit.

Now like i have said before i dont want to see the film fall into the same thing singer did and just squarly have film based on one take/on the character. But go through his rich history and take the ideals/traits and stories that worked best through all the eras. Make them into a composite of all these traits, include things from modern stuff like corp lex and have the fresh original story.

 

[super-t]

My point was simply this: Bruce Wayne is the boss, he can come and go as he pleases and he has no close friends at work or in the public eye in which he has to be the playboy around. His relationship with people at work is remote at best.

Also I was talking about Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton, when Bruce meets with Christopher Walken. He certainly is a more “real” bruce wayne. If you have a brief scene here or there, its easy to get away with the playboy thing, and the majority of time you still see bruce with Alfred or fox or someboy who he can be himself with.

Clark pretty much has the daily planet staff as supporting characters. Especially if you’re going with his parents are dead idea. If you want to actually make those characters interesting then you need to do something more akin to Lois and Clark and let those relationships develop so that people actually care what happens to them. I don’t think any other property has done a better job of that than Lois and Clark.

I agree that his truest self is when he’s with someone who knows his identity. Just make sure you can show that in the film so people can actually like the character.

Clark Kent has friends at the daily planet, coworkers he works side-by-side with. Him living a lie around them is like the scene I described when bruce saw Rachel and immediately wanted to tell her the truth.

For what it’s worth Lois and Clark was made for the general audience not the fanboys. It was written as a romantic comedy that featured lois and clark. It excelled not at the superman aspect but on the relationships at the daily planet and with clark’s parents. The average person enjoyed the show b/c of exactly that.

If you want an audience invest their emotions in fictional characters on screen then you have to give them something other than a guy flying around on screen not saying anything. That’s what SR gave us.

YES...FREAKIN....SIR!.....this is actually a good argument..or friendly debate if u will, but i too am on the clark as the real person and superman is wat he can do boat...and part of the reason for that is bc we havent seen that clark on the big screen yet and, like stated before, lois and clark jus had chemistry that the GA and myself want to see on the big screen.

 

[Kurosawa]

You have valid points, but just going back to this version would not sit well with many people. Superman's advantage is that he has a long history, so I'm sure that the Siegel and Shuster years would not be completely dismissed. This is why I'm glad Nolan is overseeing the production because he will go all the way to the first appearance through the entire history and bring out the most appealing elements. This is still a new vision of Superman that we're getting, so this movie has alot of potential to become something greater than we imagine, while still keeping a level of respect of Superman's history.

I don't mind them changing the details, but over the years they have changed the details AND the core. The only things about the modern Superman that have anything in common with what Siegel and Shuster created is the name and the costume. Everything else is changed-the personality, the reality of the character, and the sophistication of the character. I don't care one way or another about them changing things like him having a Superboy career, or decreasing his powers, but the fact that they took Superman from being a mature, confident, urbanite who was the greatest hero in the universe to being a Jethro Bodine hayseed dorky big blue boy scout who garners nothing but ridicule from his peers makes me sick. Batman is still a brilliant, grim driven detective who is motivated by revenge. Superman is now just Peter Parker with greater powers. He's become as generic as can be. Very few people are interested in him anymore because everything interesting about him was taken away in the mid-80's revamp.

To me Clark is not a bumbling spaz that exists just to keep people from believing he could be Superman. He is Kal-El's true alter-ego in the most pure sense of the word-a completely separate person that he becomes, partially to aid his fight for justice, but more than anything because he truly loves being human and a member of humanity. Clark is Superman's most beloved possession. Without the escape of Clark Kent his burden would be too much even for him. As Clark, Superman is a fiercely dedicated journalist, and he fights for what he believes in with the pen just as he does as Superman. It's not an act. There is way more to Clark Kent than a silly act.

All of my points are moot since no one seems to give a **** about Siegel and Shuster except hardcore purists like me. otherwise it would bother them that their concepts of Superman have all been thrown away.

 

[Webhead2006]

well i see your point kuro i and others just probably dont see the majority of movie goers probably liking that take on the character. Now for me as i said i would love for them to take triats and elements that defined the character from all eras and make it into a composited take and build a story around the charcters.

 

[Kurosawa]

well i see your point kuro i and others just probably dont see the majority of movie goers probably liking that take on the character. Now for me as i said i would love for them to take triats and elements that defined the character from all eras and make it into a composited take and build a story around the charcters.

Well, since they went away from that take on Clark, Superman's popularity has basically died. There is a lot to be said about how much easier it is to identify with Clark when you understand that Superman is about wish fulfillment. The idea that you could be much more than what people think you are is very appealing and universal and is essential to the characters success.

 

[true316]

Well, since they went away from that take on Clark, Superman's popularity has basically died. There is a lot to be said about how much easier it is to identify with Clark when you understand that Superman is about wish fulfillment. The idea that you could be much more than what people think you are is very appealing and universal and is essential to the characters success.

Kurosawa, I just want to say I really respect you as a poster. You actually have the guts to call DC out on what they've done to Superman. I think you are SPOT ON with you're assessment of the situation.

I can't believe that anyone would say Siegal and Shuster don't matter. In the beginning Superman had nothing to help him. There was no huge marketing campaign to herald his arrival. There were no movie producers trying to ram him down the public's throat. The only two people who believed in Superman were the two young men who made him.

If you took the hero that DC tries to force on the fans now and took him back to a time when no on had heard of Superman would he be able to achieve popularity? Would the lame boyscout who lets everyone (Batman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor) talk down to him be someone that people would be drawn to?

One of the many problems with DC is that they seem to believe the only way a person can be an idealistic, virtuous hero is if he's a lame boyscout.

THAT IS WRONG. And DC needs to wake up and realize it.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

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.

Since there's already a script in place, there's no way Nolan would want CK played as the 'real person,' given how it makes the duality of the disguise completely unbelievable in live action.

There'd be no versimilitude, no realistic logic behind it.


There has to be a huge dichotomy between Reporter Clark and Supes, or it would be completely silly like Cain in L+C.


And this requires the Reporter Clark persona to be invented and exaggerated for effect.

 

[Webhead2006]

well cant wait to see what they decide to do with the superman/clark kent identity stuff. For me as you see from my posts i would like one way, but some of you have others. So maybe we could find or get a middle ground take.

 

[not_a_victim]

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.

No, it makes perfect sense. "Clark" alway knew something was different about him, and always, always knew he was not "one of them (or us)".
He is not a Marvel mutant who gets their powers in puberty. He didn't have some industrial accident to get his powers. He didn't just wake up one day and have his powers, he had them from the second he got to Earth, and he grew up with them. He grew up knowing there was something different about himself, he just had it confirmed and straightened out upon his first visit to the FOS.
"Clark Kent" is the identity he just happened to have placed upon him by the elder Kents. Now, they raised him properly, and made sure he was a good, decent being, but Clark was never, and in my opinion, never considered himself a human being. He may have seen himself as "Clark Kent" plus some unknown factor before his revealation at the FOS, but I would offer after the first visit, he no longer saw himself as such.
As a matter of fact, Kal-El knows that most humans are so flawed, he could present "Clark" as a shy, bumbling, nervous man, and that would make most people not make the connection between Clark and Supes. He actually used human's prejudice and stereotypes to hide his true self.
Kal-El sees (and knows) he is greater than most humans, who see (and think) they are greater (or better) than Clark, as Clark is presented by Kal-El. Kal-El lets them think that way, as it helps him hide his true identity.
It's not arrogance on his part, the Kents made sure "Clark" was a humble and virtuous being, it just a fact. It's no different from a human knowing they are more intelligent than a dog.

Edit: On a very fundamental, terse sense, "Clark Kent" is a lie. It's not who he is, it's who he was told he was.

 

[Kurosawa]

Kurosawa, I just want to say I really respect you as a poster. You actually have the guts to call DC out on what they've done to Superman. I think you are SPOT ON with you're assessment of the situation.

I can't believe that anyone would say Siegal and Shuster don't matter. In the beginning Superman had nothing to help him. There was no huge marketing campaign to herald his arrival. There were no movie producers trying to ram him down the public's throat. The only two people who believed in Superman were the two young men who made him.

If you took the hero that DC tries to force on the fans now and took him back to a time when no on had heard of Superman would he be able to achieve popularity? Would the lame boyscout who lets everyone (Batman, Lois Lane, Lex Luthor) talk down to him be someone that people would be drawn to?

One of the many problems with DC is that they seem to believe the only way a person can be an idealistic, virtuous hero is if he's a lame boyscout.

THAT IS WRONG. And DC needs to wake up and realize it.

Thanks a lot. I am a huge believer in creators rights. What they have done to Supes is pathetic, but I honestly feel it's corporate driven to make him less important to their comics due to the legal issues. There are writers out there who understand him, as All-Star Superman demonstrated.

What DC has been trying to do is mix the Post-Crisis version with Silver Age elements-a very weak approach that makes no one happy. They need to go back to the basics. The country bumpkin boy scout farmboy must go. Superman is the reality, and he loves being Superman. Clark is a disguise, but he is so much more-a true alternate personality that Superman has to assume to cope. Superman cannot be generic-he deserves so much more than that.

 

[Timstuff]

How many great men really were the larger-than life figures that the public perceived them as? Look at some of our past presidents, and compare their public personas to who they were behind closed doors. They always had to put on their best face for the public, because that's what the public needed them to be. However, when away from the public eye, amongst family and close friends, their weaker, less sure side could be seen. They weren't Herculean myths, they were ordinary men who had to be more than themselves for the sake of others.

I don't really see what's wrong with showing Superman in a similar way. Both his Superman and Clark Kent personas are for the sake of the public. The public needs a great hero in Superman, but they don't see the part of him that second guesses himself. Like the great presidents, Superman is an optimist, but he also carries a lot of weight on his shoulders, and what he doesn't let the public see is just how heavy that is. Only his family and closest friends really know what Superman's strength is. His strength is not that all the things that he does are easy for him, but that he does them even though they are hard.

 

[Daybreak_st]

I was thinking there are essentially two approaches to the Superman/Clark Kent dynamic at least that have been used in live action.

Approach A:

He lands on earth with all his powers and abilities. As such he grows up as an outcast always on the outskirts of society. Supes the movie had this portrayal.

You could sum up how his life as clark influenced him becoming superman. “There’s one thing I do know son and that is you are here for a reason” by Jonathan and “All those things I can do, all those powers, and I couldn’t even save him.” Clark at Jonathan’s funeral.

At 18 he goes off finds the fortress, is there for 12 years, gains all the knowledge of the 28 known galaxies and emerges as superman. That’s how the movie handled it. In that scenario clark kent ceased to exist at 18 and became Kal-el the last son of Krypton. After that Kal-el uses his gifts to help people and is dubbed superman by the media.

In that scenario the metropolis Clark Kent is a complete fabrication. And if you watched a deleted scene from the movie Kal even asks Jor’el why he needs to continue the clark kent façade. He says something to the effect of people would call on for his help endlessly. So he keeps the clark charade.

I don’t know how the comics handled it but I believe the end result is the same you get Kal-el as the real person as Superman and clark is only his charade. So I can see your point (the guys who insist on this being the way to portray supes).

Approach B:

He lands on earth. His powers develop gradually. For the most part he’s able to live a normal well adjusted life. As he gains his abilities and more control over them he wants to use them to help people.

His morality is based on his mid-western upbrining. His overall personality is much more influenced by his parents, as is his choice to become superman. In several versions his mom even makes the costume.

In this scenario clark kent is the real person, for the most part kal-el doesn’t exist. It’s just his birth name. He chooses to become superman, not because of jor-el or the knowledge he gains at the fortress, but more so b/c of his upbringing.

So you have Approach A which seems to be more from the first 50 years of comics (though again I don’t know how his discovery of his heritage was handled in those comics, I’m basing all of this on the movie).

And you have Approach B after the John Byrne reboot. Lois and Clark did it this way, while I’d say Smallville is a combination of both.

It shows why his origin is so important in shaping each version of Clark/Superman.

According to Approach A it makes perfect sense that Clark is just a fabrication as the confused 18 year old kid pretty much disappears when he discovers the fortress and his identity as Kal-el. He doesn’t need to be clark but he choses to and it’s a complete fabrication.

According to Approach B clark grew up well adjusted, his parents had a greater influence on his choosing to use his powers to help people and becoming superman. In this case it makes sense that clark is the real person and superman is just something he can do, like clark kent without needing to hide what he’s capable of.

It really boils down to which approach you prefer as both are logical depending on how things developed once he landed on earth. I prefer approach B as was done in Superman Birthright. He has the superman element that is strong and powerful. Clark Kent is toned down not goofy but still likable. He is his truest self when with his family.

Kur you make some great posts, and I really respect your view and your knowledge of Superman. I wish I had more exposure to the early comics. I prefer approach b I think more so b/c that’s the supes I grew up with and came to know via live action, even though I also enjoyed the donner movies who utilized approach A.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

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.


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.

So in other words you do NOT want Superman to come off as a campy dork who is always a Mr.Nice guy to a fault? Because being too much of a boyscout makes him a joke?

That you would Prefer him to be an Imposing figure with a commanding presence.

If that is the case, I agree with you heavily.

I wonder if someone compared the more recent comics (as they vary) and see which ones do better. The boyscout, or the imposing mythic demigod.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea i too am not knocking on kuro and others who like the approach A deal, for me i like approach B. But yea it all really counts on how the story will approach things and how he defines becoming superman and his exposure to krypton and kalel stuff.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Well, there is no reason Superman/Clark needs to be taken from just one comic time period or medium.
　
Clark does need to be someone the audience can invest emotions into, but does not have to be as much of an extrovert as the Dean Cain version. I think that was too much "cool guy", and not enough mild mannered.
　
With Clark, I would prefer something a bit more reserved. Not a bumbling tripping over his shoelaces klutz either. If only because that would draw a lot of attention, and is not someone the audience will invest a lot of emotion into. It’s also campy.
　
I can see Clark, in metropolis as tending to seem a little repressed and introverted. Him being the kind of guy who is always dressed in proper business attire, clean cut, etc...
　
In other words, a more modern version of what Reeve did, except without being a klutz or a wuss.
　
Still maintaining the clean-cut look, and being an introvert who observes and reports.
　
I also think the thick glasses are kind of iconic in a way too, but the tape in the middle seems a bit campy. Some people with heavy prescriptions still use thick glasses, and I think it just works for him.
　
As Superman he is a mythic demigod. Both Imposing and commanding. One of the reasons I feel the actor needs to be a tall man with a strong looking build, again not saying he has to be a bodybuilder, but need to still look strong. He should look powerful and alpha at all times.
　
Now if he is Clark, but say with his parents of a close confident being less of an introvert and more normal human makes sense. Again however this is Clark in relative privacy.
　
In public and in Metropolis, and at the Planet I feel introverted is the way to go.

 

[DavidTyler]

I really think there's a major point being missed here.......

Superman doesn't hang out for interviews. He does his thing and then moves on. There isn't much of a reason for him to put on a huge act as Clark. In fact, there's a much better reason for him to put on an act when dealing with the public in his 'Superman' personna.

Clark needs to be an average guy who happens to be a little reserved and quiet but is very warm and approachable. Superman needs to be a bit aloof. It's only us - the viewers - who will be spending a lot of time with him as he does his 'daring-do'. As Lois get's to know him he'll still need to be a bit aloof with her. That may very well be part of why she's attracted to him. Being that she's a bit of a strong woman, she may not be used to strong men who don't cave to her.

 

[Daybreak_st]

YES...FREAKIN....SIR!.....this is actually a good argument..or friendly debate if u will, but i too am on the clark as the real person and superman is wat he can do boat...and part of the reason for that is bc we havent seen that clark on the big screen yet and, like stated before, lois and clark jus had chemistry that the GA and myself want to see on the big screen.

Thanks man! Yeah i think approach B lends itself to more character development. Approach A works fine the comics format, i for one loved All-Star Superman, but i don't know it that would work in film. Like you said the chemisty they had in lois and clark and the interpersonal relationships with the Daily Planet has never been seen on film and would allow the audience to really enjoy and get to know the characters better.

Also i'll add i want a justification to why clark is a reporter. So far the movies only show the DP as a backdrop, but never show lois and clark investigating anything. No I guess SR did do this with lois investigating the blackout but it was still boring. I really enjoyed Lois and Clark, how the stories they investigated directly related to his function as superman (although the superman elements were often really lame). But I’d like to see him do some investigative work. Otherwise it makes little since why he chose the profession of a reporter. There’s about a million other things someone with his abilities would excel at while still keeping a lower profile than a reporter.

Also approach B leans itself to more to this as well. As in Birthright, clark genuinely enjoys journalism. He said he got dangerously good at reporting events but not interfering and that bothers him. He wants to step in and do more and that leads to him finally becoming superman. I like any approach that actually justifies the reporter angle.

 

[Daybreak_st]

I really think there's a major point being missed here.......

Superman doesn't hang out for interviews. He does his thing and then moves on. There isn't much of a reason for him to put on a huge act as Clark. In fact, there's a much better reason for him to put on an act when dealing with the public in his 'Superman' personna.

Clark needs to be an average guy who happens to be a little reserved and quiet but is very warm and approachable. Superman needs to be a bit aloof. It's only us - the viewers - who will be spending a lot of time with him as he does his 'daring-do'. As Lois get's to know him he'll still need to be a bit aloof with her. That may very well be part of why she's attracted to him. Being that she's a bit of a strong woman, she may not be used to strong men who don't cave to her.

Great point! I totally agree.

 

[Christmas]

just gonna step in and make a general point......

My biggest peeve is when people write or say Superman isn't a complex character, or too one dimensional.

Clearly, from this few pages of a thread alone, the character is open to WAY more dynamic interpretations than most people would ever stop and think about.

you can write Clark Kent in lots and lots of different ways for all the different time periods of his fictional life. I'm so excited to see what happens now with Nolan shepherding this production forward.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

To me Clark is not a bumbling spaz that exists just to keep people from believing he could be Superman. He is Kal-El's true alter-ego in the most pure sense of the word-a completely separate person that he becomes, partially to aid his fight for justice, but more than anything because he truly loves being human and a member of humanity. Clark is Superman's most beloved possession. Without the escape of Clark Kent his burden would be too much even for him. As Clark, Superman is a fiercely dedicated journalist, and he fights for what he believes in with the pen just as he does as Superman. It's not an act. There is way more to Clark Kent than a silly act.

All of my points are moot since no one seems to give a **** about Siegel and Shuster except hardcore purists like me. otherwise it would bother them that their concepts of Superman have all been thrown away.

The more I read your posts, the less I find I disagree with. Really you are just describing what most of us want and are on the same line with what we don't. For example you say that Clark is "not a bumbling spaz", and that "There is way more to Clark Kent than a silly act."

I highlighted the "no one seems to" part, as in fact you really are NOT so alone. There is the Paradigm shift. Some of us may be describing the same thing you are trying to, in different words. If you have the everyone is against me mindset, then you will frequently see what is in fact an agreement with what you want, as a dissagreement, and end up arguing with someone who is just phrasing something differently.

If someone says they do not want the last 25 years of the comics left out, they are not meaning to ditch everything before that, they just mean to take the good things from it, and not ignore it. Most here abosuletely would not either want to ditch the good parts of the silver age.

When many of those "non purists" say that Clark is who he is, they are in a sense agreeing with you in how they want him to be portrayed, or rather what they do not want to see. Nobody here (or at most a tiny minority) wants Clark to be shown as a bumbling spaz, or a silly act.

They describe that as "Clark is who he is", you describe it as "Clark is his favorite possesion" and that is as you said "not an act". In other words, the paradigm I am trying to explain is that you are not so alone, and we are for the most part all on the same side.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Here's a rough sketch of how i see clark kent. Obviously he's not as buff i sketched this a while back and was more concerned with posture and whatnot:

 

[Webhead2006]

i like what u said a few posts up day.