The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[Mr. Earle]

It's just my little vision. But it has everything to do with what i wrote in the writers section. I think it's an interesting take on what happens when his power first emerge with such a stressful climatic battle, and what causes the swift change in his personality from very outgoing regular fun guy clark kent to becoming more focused on finding out the truth about his origin and spurs his globtrotting on. His interests in uncovering the truth is spurred on by a desire to find out more about himself and what not.

I also think a battle at the begining would interesting action piece early on. Kicking the movie off like star trek. I'd prefer to wait to reveal the krypton stuff when clark discovers the fortress (you've seen my posts on this over in the fortress thread). I understand where you're coming from though, i've struggled with whether to do an action scene like this or something more traditional. I chose this because i wanted to setup some interesting things with the brainiac probe as it serves the story later on. Only way to do that was to show it at near the begining of the film.

This is just my little vision. Feel free to post your ideas i mean that's what forum is for. This is just mine.


Kuro, i know what you're saying about the clark athlete thing. My thought for this was that his powers didn't emerge yet, he was just in really good shape and he played JV sports around 14 and 15. so he's the regular athletic kid. Then around 16 the events that i describe above happened. He drops all the sports as they seem insignificant now and he's more focused on finding out the truth about what he is. so between 16-18 he becomes more removed from the social scene, spends his time doing research on astonomy, and harnessing his powers. I'd like to develop his scientific nature as well. Once he graduates he starts traveling the world.

Again guys i'm not forcing anybody to like this version, this is just what i came up with for my own little idea for a superman reboot. Only reason i posted all that here was to try to explain my stance on lana.

I know you re trying to put a fight scene in the origin story, but it doesnt seem right to me. Its hard because Clark's past doesnt have much action so you shouldnt force it. Perhaps there could be some action during Clark's training? You know, Jor-El giving him tasks around the world and all that.
Or if the origin is told in flashbacks, the action could be happening now, with flashbacks in between.

Clark as an athlete was one of Byrne's most obvious slaps in the face to Jerry Siegel. Just disgusting and disrespectful.

I understand if you dont like something, but "disrespectful"? He didnt piss on his grave dude. Relax.

I never minded the Lois vs Lana deal, I just don't want Lana knowing Clark is Superman ever, and I don't like her as a Lois clone. I don't think she's vital unless they're using a Superboy or Smallville type scenario.

Personally I dont want Lana to interfere with Clark's life in Metropolis. She could appear and make Lois jealous perhaps (causing her to discover her feelings for Clark), but i wouldnt stretch it. I would only give her a cameo in Clark's Metropolis life.
As for Clark being Superman, in the comics i think that Lana knew about his powers (or that there was something special about him without knowing about the powers), and when she heard about Superman, she knew that it was him and she was happy and proud of him. I really like this version.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Kurosawa, will you get over this hard on Siegel and Shuster, please?!? Do you represent the heirs or something like it? Superman flying was one of the biggest slaps on their face. C`MON DUDE. This is not the 30`s anymore.

Superman was such a ONE-DIMENSIONAL character before Byrne that is beyond beliefs.

I don`t agree with all things Byrne(like Supergirl, paralel universes, BS involving Lana and those alien races, Superman killing) but it seems to me you`ve never read any post-crisis comics out of pure prejudice and stupidity and never cared to see how the character has been treated in the 90`s.

The way Superman for all seasons represented Lana, Smallville, the Kents, Clark`s childhood are the way to go for the next movie, INCLUDING TORNADO and all. I really want to see that in the new movie. Not only that, I believe seeing Smallville DONE RIGHT is more important than Krypton.

In fact, add Brainiac, pre-crisis story on Krypton(Braniac invading Krypton, Kandor, ect),TAS, Birthright to For all seasons and we would have a helluva movie.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Superman flying was one of the biggest slaps on their face. C`MON DUDE. This is not the 30`s anymore.

You OWNED him.

Superman was such a ONE-DIMENSIONAL character before Byrne that is beyond beliefs.

If he is a Siegel heir, expect to hear from his lawyer. They do that sort of thing.

The way Superman for all seasons represented Lana, Smallville, the Kents, Clark`s childhood are the way to go for the next movie, INCLUDING TORNADO and all. I really want to see that in the new movie.

Do you recommend it? Should i read it?

Not only that, I believe seeing Smallville DONE RIGHT is more important than Krypton.

I couldnt agree more.
Krypton = Wayne murder
Smallville = Bruce's training.

If anything affected Clark/Superman more, it was his life on Earth and not the politics and social life on Krypton. I still dont see why people want the movie to spend like half an hour on Krypton. It doesnt matter.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I don`t agree with all things Byrne(like Supergirl, paralel universes, BS involving Lana and those alien races, Superman killing) but it seems to me you`ve never read any post-crisis comics out of pure prejudice and stupidity and never cared to see how the character has been treated in the 90`s especially when Dan Jurgens and Tom Grummet were drawing. THERE ARE SO MANY GOOD STORIES. The eradicator, exile on space, intergang, death of Clark Kent, etc etc...

PORTRAYAL OF CLARK KENT:

I don`t want to see a Clark that acts exactly like Superman too. I want him to be a kind of an act, but NOT TOO MUCH. I believe he is at heart and actions, a normal, mid-mannered guy, raised in the country side and who uses writing as way to spread Truth. I hate the total over the top geek like Chris Reeve interpretation. The only acting part i want to see is him hiding his powers. And then, Superman is his way to cut loose and put his powers into doing good for the world.

I have scene in my script that shows a little bit of that:

Clark is with Pete Ross in the Smallville General Store owned by the Langs. Lana is the waitress. Ross tells Clark to ask Lana in a date. He feels awkward at first but then begins to stand up and walk towards her. All he sees in front of him is Lana. But, all of a sudden, BLAM! He hits one of the tables of the restaurant, spilling plates and food everywhere (Two familiar jewish kids are seating by the table drawing some character for a comic book ) Clark doesn`t understand how he hit the table because he saw nothing in front of him. We then learn that, actually, what happened is that he was so focused on Lana that he saw through everything using his X-RAY vision. That`s why didn`t see the table.

SECRET IDENTITY:

I believe the secret identity works because they see Superman as an symbol, as someone so above us and so detached from our lives, that we just don`t look to the guy by our side and sAY "HEY THATS SUPERMAN"

And Earle, HELL YES. Superman for all seasons is the best Superman story ever, to me.

 

[SuperDaniel]

CONTINUING ON THE PORTRAYAL OF CLARK KENT:

Krypton = Wayne Legacy that Bruce wants to carry on

When Superman finds out that he needs to leave Smallville in order to do good in the world = Waynes murder

I totally hate the pre-crisis notion that is the Kents that need to die to cause that. First of all, like said before, it is one of the biggest superhero cliches of all time and, to me, what sets Superman apart from every hero is that WHY he uses his powers to save the world isn`t caused by some kind of personal tragedy, or something that happens to him or his family.

Krypton exploding is a big tragedy? YES. But he was barely a baby when it happend. He had no recollection. That`s like American black people nowadays thinking about Slavery. It is a tragedy and we feel it and it shaped us. But you can`t REALLY feel that because you haven`t experienced it live.

Superman`s childhood contained NO TRAGEDY at all and that`s what sets him apart from every hero. That`s why he is the best.

IN FACT, the tragedy lies in what happens to his environment and surroundings. When a Tornado came to Smallville, he was learning to use his powers. He still SAVED everybody. Nobody died. BUT THATS NOT THE POINT. What does he do?

He says " I could`ve done more". And in one line, he sums up the begining of the never-ending battle to make the world a better place.

When Clark sees the destruction caused by a force of nature, the Tornado as represented in For all Seasons, and he sees all those familiar places from his childhood destroyed, people hurt, homeless (Think Hurricane Katrina, Haiti problems, 911).

Its not a personal tragedy. Its just him realizing that "With great power comes, great responsibility" but in a much more special way than Spider-man.

Clark Kent grows up to be Superman.

And this is the post-crisis version of Superman. A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN PRE-CRISIS.

How the hell that is not staying true to the myth?

It`s just that there a lot writers who don`t get Superman and get caught on details.

 

[SuperDaniel]

CONTINUING ON THE PORTRAYAL OF CLARK KENT:

Krypton = Wayne Legacy that Bruce wants to carry on

When Superman finds out that he needs to leave Smallville in order to do good in the world = Waynes murder

I totally hate the pre-crisis notion that is the Kents that need to die to cause that. First of all, like said before, it is one of the biggest superhero cliches of all time and, to me, what sets Superman apart from every hero is that WHY he uses his powers to save the world isn`t caused by some kind of personal tragedy, or something that happens to him or his family.

Krypton exploding is a big tragedy? YES. But he was barely a baby when it happend. He had no recollection. That`s like American black people nowadays thinking about Slavery. It is a tragedy and we feel it and it shaped us. But you can`t REALLY feel that because you haven`t experienced it live.

Superman`s childhood contained NO TRAGEDY at all and that`s what sets him apart from every hero. That`s why he is the best.

IN FACT, the tragedy lies in what happens to his environment and surroundings. When a Tornado came to Smallville, he was learning to use his powers. He still SAVED everybody. Nobody died. BUT THATS NOT THE POINT. What does he do?

He says " I could`ve done more". And in one line, he sums up the begining of the never-ending battle to make the world a better place.

When Clark sees the destruction caused by a force of nature, the Tornado as represented in For all Seasons, and he sees all those familiar places from his childhood destroyed, people hurt, homeless (Think Hurricane Katrina, Haiti problems, 911).

Its not a personal tragedy. Its just him realizing that "With great power comes, great responsibility" but in a much more special way than Spider-man.

Clark Kent grows up to be Superman.

And this is the post-crisis version of Superman. A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN PRE-CRISIS.

How the hell that is not staying true to the myth?

It`s just that there a lot writers who don`t get Superman and get caught on details.

 

[Kurosawa]

Kurosawa, will you get over this hard on Siegel and Shuster, please?!? Do you represent the heirs or something like it? Superman flying was one of the biggest slaps on their face. C`MON DUDE. This is not the 30`s anymore.

Superman was such a ONE-DIMENSIONAL character before Byrne that is beyond beliefs.

I don`t agree with all things Byrne(like Supergirl, paralel universes, BS involving Lana and those alien races, Superman killing) but it seems to me you`ve never read any post-crisis comics out of pure prejudice and stupidity and never cared to see how the character has been treated in the 90`s.

The way Superman for all seasons represented Lana, Smallville, the Kents, Clark`s childhood are the way to go for the next movie, INCLUDING TORNADO and all. I really want to see that in the new movie. Not only that, I believe seeing Smallville DONE RIGHT is more important than Krypton.

In fact, add Brainiac, pre-crisis story on Krypton(Braniac invading Krypton, Kandor, ect),TAS, Birthright to For all seasons and we would have a helluva movie.

I hardly think being a hayseed hick big blue boy scout that no one in his universe respects is a very complex character at all. Nowhere near as much as a character who has taken on a huge burden and is really somewhat lonely, and lives as a human because being a God full time is too much for even him. I'm not going to lie and say every single Pre-Crisis story was a brilliant character study, but the best ones-the early Siegel, the 60's Siegel and Maggin's stories from the 70's are as good as anything I've ever read and they built a character who was way more than one-dimensional. That is a typical anti-historical argument that modernist fans use and it's completely untrue.

It's not my fault that you for some reason choose ignorance about comics. You could educate yourself and study comics, but you just accept what DC wants you to accept. Continue enjoying the adventures of Batman's ***** all you want. Me, anything I'm interested in I study the complete history of and learn all I can. But your opinion is set, and it's not like anything's changing it now. If I was so closed minded and so conservative in my tastes I'd ***** about Batman and Wonder Woman's Post-Crisis changes which were also extensive and in WW's case WAY more extensive than even Superman's, but I feel they stayed close enough to the core principles of both those characters so that they were still true to themselves. Superman today doesn't have to be just like the 1938 or 1960 or 1977 Superman, but he should at least be close enough to the same character that he is recognizable. All the latter day version has is the name and the costume. In my opinion they changed him too much.

You OWNED him.

If he is a Siegel heir, expect to hear from his lawyer. They do that sort of thing.
Do you recommend it? Should i read it?
I couldnt agree more.
Krypton = Wayne murder
Smallville = Bruce's training.

If anything affected Clark/Superman more, it was his life on Earth and not the politics and social life on Krypton. I still dont see why people want the movie to spend like half an hour on Krypton. It doesnt matter.

Whatever. Sorry I don't blindly agree with the currently accepted crap and have my own tastes. Sorry I back up my views with 50 years of stories and the intentions of the characters creators. Sorry that my views on comics are radical and are against what the companies want. But mostly I'm sorry you guys never knew a time when Superman was respected as the greatest hero in comics instead of his current place as a whipping boy and Batman's little toad.

Miller changed Batman but didn't ruin him. Perez changed WW but didn't ruin her. They changed the details but retained the core. Byrne dumped everything and made Superman into a Colossus/Spider-Man hybrid and ruined him.

Look, we don't agree and we aren't going to agree. To me Siegel and Shuster were great creators and Siegel in particular was a genius, to you guys they're just two dead guys whose names are in the Superman credits. And I get that. I know you guys don't care to learn the history of comics or respect the characters creators. And that's fine and completely your right. It is also my right to stand up and state that I want for the character that THEY, not John ****ing Byrne, created to be true to his roots, even if it isn't gonna happen.

I'm done here. Next time Superman is crying like a baby or getting owned by Batman when he should be a badass, I'll think of you guys.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

It's not my fault that you for some reason choose ignorance about comics. You could educate yourself and study comics, but you just accept what DC wants you to accept. Continue enjoying the adventures of Batman's ***** all you want.

Whatever. Sorry I don't blindly agree with the currently accepted crap and have my own tastes.

I'm done here. Next time Superman is crying like a baby or getting owned by Batman when he should be a badass, I'll think of you guys.

You mad?

Can you dissagree with them without the insults?

Take a breath. Ok, now kicking over the Bee hive is not a good way to get honey. You instead get angry bees.

Kick back, have a drink, relax. (Yes my arm looks huge, and yes thats 1st
Calvary and 34th ID combined combat patch tattoo)

 

[Kurosawa]

You mad?

Can you dissagree with them without the insults?

Take a breath. Ok, now kicking over the Bee hive is not a good way to get honey. You instead get angry bees.

Kick back, have a drink, relax. (Yes my arm looks huge, and yes thats 1st
Calvary and 34th ID combined combat patch tattoo)

Hey, they were the ones high-fiveing with the "you OWNED him" crap like this was the playground.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Hey, they were the ones high-fiveing with the "you OWNED him" crap like this was the playground.

They wouldn't have done that if you had not used insults to make your point.

That is what happens with things like:

"anyone who thinks such and such is a dumbass" or even "if you think such and such you are not a real fan etc...".

That is kicking over the Bee hive. Politics isn't just voting.

You want to convey an idea, in a way that does not insult those who don't agree. You can say "I dissagree", and "here is how I think it should go", but you will not change their mind with insulting them.

My guess is you just got a little too invested in the point you wanted to make, and got Angry at anyone who did not agree.

Hence why I suggested you take a break from the board and chill out, relax, then come back and post, but don't get angry.

Try thinking of this before you get angry when you post.

 

[SuperDaniel]

LOL. If you were that open minded, at least you would find some value in POST-CRISIS stories like Exile on space, Eradicator Saga, Death of Clark Kent, Superman for all seasons, Superman Peace on Earth, Action comics 775, action comics 800, etc etc. Joe Kelly, Dan Jurgens and others a lot of times wrote great Superman Stories.

But that doesn`t seem the case with you. Superman is treated like **** because some writers nowadays and editors don`t get Superman and him being Batman`s ***** began with Frank Miller`s DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Period.I totally hated the new Justice League movie because Superman is treated like **** in that and barely does anything while at the same time, Batman is this "superhuman can do everything type of guy" wich is just plain pathetic. The problem with the way Superman is treated nowadays is called DAN DIDIO.

But who cares? I don`t buy comics anymore....

 

[Kurosawa]

They wouldn't have done that if you had not used insults to make your point.

That is what happens with things like:

"anyone who thinks such and such is a dumbass" or even "if you think such and such you are not a real fan etc...".

That is kicking over the Bee hive. Politics isn't just voting.

You want to convey an idea, in a way that does not insult those who don't agree. You can say "I dissagree", and "here is how I think it should go", but you will not change their mind with insulting them.

My guess is you just got a little too invested in the point you wanted to make, and got Angry at anyone who did not agree.

Hence why I suggested you take a break from the board and chill out, relax, then come back and post, but don't get angry.

Try thinking of this before you get angry when you post.

Umm, they were cackling over "owning" me first. They insulted me. I didn't mention them personally, I just said I felt Clark being an athlete was an insult to Siegel and Shuster. Anyone who knows anything about them and how and why they created Superman would get my point instantly. They didn't get it because they don't know or care to learn.

I know very few people agree with me about Superman. To most fans Siegel and Shuster are nothing but two dead Jews whose families sue DC/WB.

 

[Kurosawa]

LOL. If you were that open minded, at least you would find some value in POST-CRISIS stories like Exile on space, Eradicator Saga, Death of Clark Kent, Superman for all seasons, Superman Peace on Earth, Action comics 775, action comics 800, etc etc. Joe Kelly, Dan Jurgens and others a lot of times wrote great Superman Stories.

But that doesn`t seem the case with you. Superman is treated like **** because some writers nowadays and editors don`t get Superman and him being Batman`s ***** began with Frank Miller`s DARK KNIGHT RETURNS. Period.I totally hated the new Justice League movie because Superman is treated like **** in that and barely does anything while at the same time, Batman is this "superhuman can do everything type of guy" wich is just plain pathetic. The problem with the way Superman is treated nowadays is called DAN DIDIO.

Why don`t u pop the fleishcer cartoons and stay with that version of Superman forever and be happy?

We, other fans, moved on. Same with Superman as a character.

There are some Post-Crisis stories I have liked and I've mentioned that.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Umm, they were cackling over "owning" me first. They insulted me. I didn't mention them personally, I just said I felt Clark being an athlete was an insult to Siegel and Shuster. Anyone who knows anything about them and how and why they created Superman would get my point instantly. They didn't get it because they don't know or care to learn.

I know very few people agree with me about Superman. To most fans Siegel and Shuster are nothing but two dead Jews whose families sue DC/WB.

Yes, they were big bad meanies.

Sure you did not mention them personally, but that does not mean they did not get insulted.

Now here is an example of Practical Politics:

I for one did not like Superman returns, at all. Here is how my post would go:

"I did not like anything about the movie. I had to take a shower after watching it" - now there will be people who may ask me why, and I will then go into detail, have some exchange etc...

Now if I say:

"anyone who like Superman Returns does not know anything about superman, and is an idiot who chose to ignore the comics" - now I have already insulted them, even if I did not point the finger at a specific person. Those who liked it go "he just insulted ME".

They then get mad, yes they do. Yes they laughed when they picked your post apart. Yes they insulted you, and they still might too. You don't have to point the finger right at one person for them to take offence and then go on the offensive.

Hence why you got to keep in mind, this is the internet. People will not agree with you on everything, or maybe nothing at all. There is nothing wrong with dissagreeing, but when you say things that are personal like "you ignore the comics", they will attack you.

 

[Webhead2006]

Could you elaborate on how Secret Origins handles Lana? Its the new canon origin so it should count more than anything else. Doesnt sound so good to me.

Anyway, as i've always said, if i were the director i'd spend some time on Clark's origin. And Clark's origin doesnt involve training with ninjas (he doesnt need to), but his early life in Smallville and how he was raised, how he dealt with his powers and alien nature and so forth.

So i would definitely include Clark's social life as a teenager, but i'd make him more like (i cant believe i'm going to say this) Smallville's Clark instead of Donner's loser Clark. Therefore i would include Lana and make her his first big love, the girl he had a crush on for a long time before he actually got her.
And when he does, they date seriously and he tells her his secret (having powers but not knowing what to do with them yet). But for some reason they break up and he is forced to move on. Reasons for this could be:
1) "Clark i'm holding you back, you should fulfill your destiny"
2) Clark needs to get out of Smallville, go to college, do bigger stuff but she wants to stay there.
3) Clark starts his first adventures and Lana cant take worrying for him or having to lie for him.

Since i'd have them love each other, I'll go with the first reason for a break up. Clark would definitely hesitate to leave Lana and start a new life all alone.

I'd definitely use Lana as a foil Lois, making her everything that Lois isnt. Lana should be sweater, simpler, softer, etc, when we all know that Lois is nothing like that. Here (i love this video):
[YT]mmyYft56HpE[/YT]
Going from Lana to Lois would signify that Clark has moved on and that even though things arent what they used to be (village to city, student to reporter, simple life to saving millions, Lana to Lois), Clark is OK with that.

All in all, i'd go with a sweeter approach to Lana and everything about Smallville. Smallville is Clark's happy and beautiful past, the one that made him the man he is now, the reason why when Lois calls him "Smallville" with a taunt, he takes no offense but rather he feels proud like: "if only you've been there you wouldnt say that".
Clark's life is sweater than Bruce's and yet the Donnerverse is sadder than even the Millerverse. I dont want to see a loser Clark ever again. Its one thing to hide your powers, and another to be the laughing stock everywhere you go.

This would be a good approach to go with.

 

[Kurosawa]

Yes, they were big bad meanies.

Sure you did not mention them personally, but that does not mean they did not get insulted.

Now here is an example of Practical Politics:

I for one did not like Superman returns, at all. Here is how my post would go:

"I did not like anything about the movie. I had to take a shower after watching it" - now there will be people who may ask me why, and I will then go into detail, have some exchange etc...

Now if I say:

"anyone who like Superman Returns does not know anything about superman, and is an idiot who chose to ignore the comics" - now I have already insulted them, even if I did not point the finger at a specific person. Those who liked it go "he just insulted ME".

They then get mad, yes they do. Yes they laughed when they picked your post apart. Yes they insulted you, and they still might too. You don't have to point the finger right at one person for them to take offence and then go on the offensive.

Hence why you got to keep in mind, this is the internet. People will not agree with you on everything, or maybe nothing at all. There is nothing wrong with dissagreeing, but when you say things that are personal like "you ignore the comics", they will attack you.

Meh, we're probably taking it all a little too personally but I'll admit modernist fans get on my nerves.

 

[Webhead2006]

For me yes i may not know everything that is superman from the early eras. Since i never read those books, and what i know more of is the more modern stuff. But for me like i said the best thing to do is look at superman as a whole. Take the best things from each era or best liked stories and find that good common middle ground.

 

[Kurosawa]

For me yes i may not know everything that is superman from the early eras. Since i never read those books, and what i know more of is the more modern stuff. But for me like i said the best thing to do is look at superman as a whole. Take the best things from each era or best liked stories and find that good common middle ground.

Well, you can't please everyone. I would take the social conscience/populism from the early Golden Age, the complex Superman/Clark duality from the 70's, and the warrior aspect/better developed journalist from the more modern era. I mean, the Jurgens stuff was awesome even though I disliked elements of it, and Kingdom Come is a classic...I don't hate everything from 1986-on, just certain things I felt were too far from the core. But they are big things, at least to me.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea we can never please everyone. That is why i keep saying i would take the best stuff from all eras and try to find a good compromise on traits/characters and all that. So then we get a superman from the whole of his creation on screen and all that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

SECRET IDENTITY:

I believe the secret identity works because they see Superman as an symbol, as someone so above us and so detached from our lives, that we just don`t look to the guy by our side and sAY "HEY THATS SUPERMAN"

That's exactly how it works. Nobody even suspects that Superman has a dual identity because he is an alien and he wears no mask. He is more like a god to the Metropolitans (is that how they re called? ).

And Earle, HELL YES. Superman for all seasons is the best Superman story ever, to me.

Thanks a lot. I'll go get it.

Clark is with Pete Ross in the Smallville General Store owned by the Langs. Lana is the waitress. Ross tells Clark to ask Lana in a date. He feels awkward at first but then begins to stand up and walk towards her. All he sees in front of him is Lana. But, all of a sudden, BLAM! He hits one of the tables of the restaurant, spilling plates and food everywhere (Two familiar jewish kids are seating by the table drawing some character for a comic book ) Clark doesn`t understand how he hit the table because he saw nothing in front of him. We then learn that, actually, what happened is that he was so focused on Lana that he saw through everything using his X-RAY vision. That`s why didn`t see the table.

Clark can also seem absent minded because most of the time he is overhearing the world for accidents, he is always late, etc.
Then, there is a nice scene from All-Star Superman (which portrays Clark more like Reeve's version, but anyway) that Clark bumps into a passerby to save him from the flying debris of a car crash happening near by. Here:

But the following is stupid and unnecessary:

 

[Mr. Earle]

CONTINUING ON THE PORTRAYAL OF CLARK KENT:

Krypton = Wayne Legacy that Bruce wants to carry on

When Superman finds out that he needs to leave Smallville in order to do good in the world = Waynes murder

I totally hate the pre-crisis notion that is the Kents that need to die to cause that. First of all, like said before, it is one of the biggest superhero cliches of all time and, to me, what sets Superman apart from every hero is that WHY he uses his powers to save the world isn`t caused by some kind of personal tragedy, or something that happens to him or his family.

Krypton exploding is a big tragedy? YES. But he was barely a baby when it happend. He had no recollection. That`s like American black people nowadays thinking about Slavery. It is a tragedy and we feel it and it shaped us. But you can`t REALLY feel that because you haven`t experienced it live.

Superman`s childhood contained NO TRAGEDY at all and that`s what sets him apart from every hero. That`s why he is the best.

IN FACT, the tragedy lies in what happens to his environment and surroundings. When a Tornado came to Smallville, he was learning to use his powers. He still SAVED everybody. Nobody died. BUT THATS NOT THE POINT. What does he do?

He says " I could`ve done more". And in one line, he sums up the begining of the never-ending battle to make the world a better place.

When Clark sees the destruction caused by a force of nature, the Tornado as represented in For all Seasons, and he sees all those familiar places from his childhood destroyed, people hurt, homeless (Think Hurricane Katrina, Haiti problems, 911).

Its not a personal tragedy. Its just him realizing that "With great power comes, great responsibility" but in a much more special way than Spider-man.

Clark Kent grows up to be Superman.

And this is the post-crisis version of Superman. A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN PRE-CRISIS.

How the hell that is not staying true to the myth?

It`s just that there a lot writers who don`t get Superman and get caught on details.

HELL YES.
If i may add something, Clark's origin has no tragedy (i'd rather they dont kill Pa Kent) other than the fact that he feels alone and alien in our world sometimes. "Do i tell Lana? What if she is disgusted by me?" and all that. The arrival or Supergirl is a big relief for him as he doesnt feel so alone anymore.
But that is all.

Hey, they were the ones high-fiveing with the "you OWNED him" crap like this was the playground.

Well he did. Siegel's Superman didnt fly and didnt have all the powers he has now. We must cancel all that to return to teh core, right?

Umm, they were cackling over "owning" me first. They insulted me.

I wasnt insulting you, just pointing out that SuperDaniel's arguement was very, very good. I meant no disrespect.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Meh, we're probably taking it all a little too personally but I'll admit modernist fans get on my nerves.

t:

This would be a good approach to go with.

Thanks a lot!

 

[Mr. Earle]

I hardly think being a hayseed hick big blue boy scout

He's hardly that. He is a respected journalist. Are all people raised in villages rednecks to you?

that no one in his universe respects

and lives as a human because being a God full time is too much for even him

Silver Age/Donner Clark is human? He is a caricature!

It's not my fault that you for some reason choose ignorance about comics. You could educate yourself and study comics, but you just accept what DC wants you to accept.

See my jaw dropping to floor just above? This is where you showed that you dont read current comics and you re stuck to your oldies.
And what is this "DC wants us to accept" thing? If DC takes a certain route for the character for so long, it must be successful and well-liked. They want to sell books after all, not spread a religion.

I'd ***** about Batman and Wonder Woman's Post-Crisis changes which were also extensive and in WW's case WAY more extensive than even Superman's, but I feel they stayed close enough to the core principles of both those characters so that they were still true to themselves.

Why does staying true to the core mean so much to you (not that i think that Superman isnt, he's just more modern and less 1940ies)? What if the core is outdated and the new version is a lot better?

But mostly I'm sorry you guys never knew a time when Superman was respected as the greatest hero in comics instead of his current place as a whipping boy and Batman's little toad.

He's DCU's Jesus. He's the most respected hero out there. Final Crisis was a universe wide event that he resolved almost by himself.

Look, we don't agree and we aren't going to agree

It's ok. We can keep discussing though, cant we?

To me Siegel and Shuster were great creators and Siegel in particular was a genius, to you guys they're just two dead guys whose names are in the Superman credits. And I get that. I know you guys don't care to learn the history of comics or respect the characters creators. And that's fine and completely your right. It is also my right to stand up and state that I want for the character that THEY, not John ****ing Byrne, created to be true to his roots, even if it isn't gonna happen.

See, there's your problem. Morrison is currently my No1 writer and his Batman my favourite, but in 40 years that Batman will obviously be different to cater to the tastes of that time, when new fans dont like a 40 year old version of Batman that i do, i wont take it as a sacrilege or blasphemy.
Morrison or Siegel or whoever are great writers, but the character cant stay the same forever just to pay tribute to them. Morrison has even admitted that the character he introduced to the mythos and spent so much time developing, and even predestines for a successor to the cowl, Damian, could be killed by the writer that succeeds him in the bat books.

You must be a Siegel family member to be so obsessed with him, and his name, and his legacy, and all that. No one is disrespecting anyone. We just like different things in our time and in my opinion Superman is true to his core, just more modern.
Besides, you have to admit that Siegel cant have done everything right. His Clark was simply unacceptable.

I'm done here. Next time Superman is crying like a baby or getting owned by Batman when he should be a badass, I'll think of you guys.

Oh come on, everybody is owned by everybody without losing dignity. And no, he's not Batman's *****. They re bros.

 

[RetroNaz]

I don't know how you guys would feel about this, but I'd personally like to see a very modern tale of Superman. Give him a very pleasant yet quiet personality. Kind of like the guy you just forget about at work because he does his job so well and is always busy working if that makes sense. No bumbling Clark, just a quiet, competant guy that attracts no attention from the guys or girls.

I'd like Clark to be who he really is as a person, but Superman to be who he thinks the world needs.

That way he isn't going around being phony to Lois when he's Clark...and wants nothing more than Lois to love Clark, not Superman.

I'd also like to see Superman become a little angry at people at times, looking down on them as they won't help themselves to make earth a better place and rely on him to solve their problems...but have Lois there to keep him grounded. She shows him how to be more human, which is his drive. So he can be a better Clark who he wants Lois to love. It's changing it up a bit, and might also help keep a bit of that alien-ness in him...showing that he's still working at trying to be human.

Dunno, these could be crap ideas...just thought I'd give it a go

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Anyone else here think it would be kind of cool if in the end of the movie, after Superman saves the day, one of the Villain has covered his tracks enough to think he has gotten away with the perfect crime; then in the last scene Clark puts in print the evidence against this person, say Bruno Manheim for example. This leading to the arrest and conviction, coming from Clark, not Superman.

I'm not sure how to work the whole thing, but I think that would be a cool concept to put in at the end, as sort of Clark's victory.