The Official Re-Imagining Clark Kent Thread

[SuperMike335!!]

The fight being about weather or not he sees him self as is irrelevant.
Making him look like a Joke would make the movie campy.

Even if you see Superman as the real person, and Clark as a disguise, its really not a big deal, as either way he should not be over the top nerd to a fault.

If he is constantly putting up an act, just so he does not have to be superman, then likely he is not going to over-act it.

The way I see it, Clark must be important. Either way, real guy or not. If he did not enjoy his time as Clark, he would just be superman full time.
So I don’t see him as over-acting if Clark is the act. He just works to blend in as human, which other than being taller and relatively thick, is not so hard to do. Most of identity is in the micro behaviors, not macro behaviors.

Little things like body language, posture, and expressions have FAR more to do with the way humans perceive identity than stature, build, or facial features. This is one of the things that spies really understand. It is not what you look like, but what you act like.

Has anyone ever seen someone acting, or acted themselves, different than they usually do, and heard or said "Who are you? And what did you do with the real insert name here"?

So Clark would have different posture, body language, expressions and speech pattern. He would not have to be a campy mess to do that however. Besides those other changes, he would be more quiet, and mild than Superman.

With confidants who know who he really is, he does not have to act just like he does in public as Superman either, but rather something in-between. I see Superman as having somewhat of an over the top personality. Not crazy, but very commanding and leader like. Loud, and Direct, to the point where it has to be intentional.

As Clark, he can show that he is a successful Journalist, a Quiet observer who thinks, and asks important questions. As Superman he takes direct action. Then there is that other side that only comes out with those close to him, who know his secret, and they get the guy who is somewhat in-between.

That is the purpose for either having the Kents alive, or another confidant in the movie. It is this in-between guy who the Audience likely will identify with the most, so far as I would. Not the symbol, not the reporter, the person who Superman is when not at the daily planet or reporting, and not in confrontation with disaster either. Somehow the movie should show that.

 

[Webhead2006]

Well for me all i would like to see if them find the right balance between the old and the new. To h ave that common middle ground.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Great post, very well said, Supermike! I agree completely. This is what i want to see in the next movie.

 

[Kurosawa]

The fight being about weather or not he sees him self as is irrelevant.
Making him look like a Joke would make the movie campy.

Even if you see Superman as the real person, and Clark as a disguise, its really not a big deal, as either way he should not be over the top nerd to a fault.

If he is constantly putting up an act, just so he does not have to be superman, then likely he is not going to over-act it.

The way I see it, Clark must be important. Either way, real guy or not. If he did not enjoy his time as Clark, he would just be superman full time.
So I don’t see him as over-acting if Clark is the act. He just works to blend in as human, which other than being taller and relatively thick, is not so hard to do. Most of identity is in the micro behaviors, not macro behaviors.

Little things like body language, posture, and expressions have FAR more to do with the way humans perceive identity than stature, build, or facial features. This is one of the things that spies really understand. It is not what you look like, but what you act like.

Has anyone ever seen someone acting, or acted themselves, different than they usually do, and heard or said "Who are you? And what did you do with the real insert name here"?

So Clark would have different posture, body language, expressions and speech pattern. He would not have to be a campy mess to do that however. Besides those other changes, he would be more quiet, and mild than Superman.

With confidants who know who he really is, he does not have to act just like he does in public as Superman either, but rather something in-between. I see Superman as having somewhat of an over the top personality. Not crazy, but very commanding and leader like. Loud, and Direct, to the point where it has to be intentional.

As Clark, he can show that he is a successful Journalist, a Quiet observer who thinks, and asks important questions. As Superman he takes direct action. Then there is that other side that only comes out with those close to him, who know his secret, and they get the guy who is somewhat in-between.

That is the purpose for either having the Kents alive, or another confidant in the movie. It is this in-between guy who the Audience likely will identify with the most, so far as I would. Not the symbol, not the reporter, the person who Superman is when not at the daily planet or reporting, and not in confrontation with disaster either. Somehow the movie should show that.

I never said I advocated campy, over the top clutzy Clark.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Great post, very well said, Supermike! I agree completely. This is what i want to see in the next movie.

Thank you.

I never said I advocated campy, over the top clutzy Clark.

Didn't say you did.

My point is this is not needed:

Because I think we all agree that campy is never the way to go.

 

[Daybreak_st]

As far as clark character moments i'd like to seeing along the lines of the following if they show him as a little boy:

 

[SuperDaniel]

That`s funny. The way supermike explained is EXACTELY the way he is treated in post-crisis, before Lois & Clark got married. It was only after they got close and closer that she was able to see past the disguise.

Kurosawa, having really not UNDERSTOOD the comics or even read them, kept saying BS after BS (oH, I READ and didn`t like them don`t cut it), failing to aknowledge that post-crisis Metropolis Clark IS STILL a disguise.

Even in Lois & Clark...

In the episode Neverending battle, Lois explaining how Clark is the past and Superman the future, while Clark keep saving people, and to Lois he is looking like a nerd, all goofy and all.

Also, in the episode I`m looking through you, Clark pretends to drop a pen to save a plan that is falling. That Clark is obvious still a disguise. But its a disguise for him to hide his powers and live a normal life, fall in love, etc, something that Superman wouldn`t be able to do.

That Dean Cain quote "Superman is what i can do. Clark is who I am" was never said in the comics and was AND STILL IS misinterpreted by a lot of fans.

Dean meant that Clark, the guy behind the costume who was raised by the Kents is a real person. What you can do is also part of who you are.

Both Superman and Clark are real because they`re the goddamn SAME PERSON. Clark, in that episode, was trying to explain to Lois to make her see beyond the symbol status i`ve talked before. That, beyond the glasses, flamboyant costume and powers, there`s a real person with feelings and who loved her.

HG Wells, in the same episode adresses the story:

"Am I gallactically stupid?" she asks

"No, miss Lane. Not stupid. Blind. It is why generation after generation, kids never tire of the story and the parents never tire of telling it. We all blinded by love. Especially that love that changes us forever."

STILL TRUE TO THE CORE OF SIEGEL AND SHUSTER. Just GALLACTICALLY STUPID people can`t see it.

ps: When Clark was a football star in Highschool, he didn`t have powers, at least according to Dan Jurgens when he was racing against Kenny Braverman and all. All he had was will power to succeed. Go read "The Death of Clark Kent". It makes no sense but i like that intepretation better since i`ve never liked Clark as a football star too...

It was estabilished that Clark got his powers with time and makes sense for it to be like this. I personally don`t want to see NO superpowered baby or kid in the next movie.

 

[Kurosawa]

That`s funny. The way supermike explained is EXACTELY the way he is treated in post-crisis, before Lois & Clark got married. It was only after they got close and closer that she was able to see past the disguise.

Kurosawa, having really not UNDERSTOOD the comics or even read them, kept saying BS after BS (oH, I READ and didn`t like them don`t cut it), failing to aknowledge that post-crisis Metropolis Clark IS STILL a disguise.

Even in Lois & Clark...

In the episode Neverending battle, Lois explaining how Clark is the past and Superman the future, while Clark keep saving people, and to Lois he is looking like a nerd, all goofy and all.

Also, in the episode I`m looking through you, Clark pretends to drop a pen to save a plan that is falling. That Clark is obvious still a disguise. But its a disguise for him to hide his powers and live a normal life, fall in love, etc, something that Superman wouldn`t be able to do.

That Dean Cain quote "Superman is what i can do. Clark is who I am" was never said in the comics and was AND STILL IS misinterpreted by a lot of fans.

Dean meant that Clark, the guy behind the costume who was raised by the Kents is a real person. What you can do is also part of who you are.

Both Superman and Clark are real because they`re the goddamn SAME PERSON. Clark, in that episode, was trying to explain to Lois to make her see beyond the symbol status i`ve talked before. That, beyond the glasses, flamboyant costume and powers, there`s a real person with feelings and who loved her.

HG Wells, in the same episode adresses the story:

"Am I gallactically stupid?" she asks

"No, miss Lane. Not stupid. Blind. It is why generation after generation, kids never tire of the story and the parents never tire of telling it. We all blinded by love. Especially that love that changes us forever."

STILL TRUE TO THE CORE OF SIEGEL AND SHUSTER. Just GALLACTICALLY STUPID people can`t see it.

ps: When Clark was a football star in Highschool, he didn`t have powers, at least according to Dan Jurgens when he was racing against Kenny Braverman and all. All he had was will power to succeed. Go read "The Death of Clark Kent". It makes no sense but i like that intepretation better since i`ve never liked Clark as a football star too...

It was estabilished that Clark got his powers with time and makes sense for it to be like this. I personally don`t want to see NO superpowered baby or kid in the next movie.

You need to knock it off with this lie that I never read the Byrne comics. I read the ****ing rags the day they came out. I understood them. I understood that to me they sucked ass.

 

[Mr. Earle]

This thread has turned into:

Spoiler

 

[Kurosawa]

That's what usually happens when a person comes along with an opinion that is against the grain.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You're both being aggressive.

 

[Kurosawa]

You're both being aggressive.

Well, I'm not trying to convince him to agree with me. I'm fully aware my views are extremely conservative. I don't expect him or anyone to suddenly like Silver or Bronze Age Superman.

 

[Nightwing1983]

You need to knock it off with this lie that I never read the Byrne comics. I read the ****ing rags the day they came out. I understood them. I understood that to me they sucked ass.

I suggest givin' them another chance.

 

[batman44]

It's okay having a disagreement/ opinion, let's just be civil guys. No need telling anyone "they don't understand" or "you're blind" , and etc based on which era(s) one enjoys of Superman.

 

[RetroNaz]

I'm approaching this whole thing not so much as a fan of the comics, but more as a fan of movies and what would make for the most entertaining movie.

Personally, I think that would be a modern day retelling of Superman.

I'd like to have Clark a smart, sophisticated guy that just manages to stay hidden in the background not just due to his quiet persona, but because he is a damn good reporter always out doing his job. He doesn't sit down long enough for people to put two and two toegthor.

This will totally get me flamed here, but I would like to see Clark (when he changes into Superman) change either at his apartment or at the Daily Planet. I don't want to have the suit hidden under his work clothes because it just doesn't seem realistic enough to have a full Superman suit and cape hidden under his Clark clothes.

I'd like him to want Lois to love his Clark personality - who he really is. His Superman persona is simply that. A persona. One that he does because he wants the world in which he now calls his home to be a better place. He's Superman to inspire the good in people, and I'd like to see him preach that a little bit when reporters/government ask why he is here.

I want to see his human parents alive and well.

And I want to see Superman show contempt for the human race at times, I want to see that he can still be alien - and that Lois shows him how to be a good person (human) and what it means to be a real hero.

Last but not least, I want him to face an alien nemesis this time around, one that brings Kryptonite with them (accidentally?) so we can have a valid reason why there is Kryptonite on Earth.

 

[Kurosawa]

I suggest givin' them another chance.

I've got a bunch of Superman books to file soon, so I almost certainly will.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I see that you read, right. You still didn`t comment on the arguments presented here that post-crisis Clark is still a disguise.

You just, again and again, keep saying, i read them, didn`t like them.

That`s not what i`m talking about.

And this shows to me that you really haven`t read them...or understood them.

I`m not being agressive. I just want him to at least criticize something with valid points.

We both agree that we don`t want Chris Reeve, dumbass, coward Clark. So why the hell doesn`t he criticize Maggin for liking it, then?

All his arguments make no sense, that`s all.

 

[Kurosawa]

I see that you read, right. You still didn`t comment on the arguments presented here that post-crisis Clark is still a disguise.

You just, again and again, keep saying, i read them, didn`t like them.

That`s not what i`m talking about.

And this shows to me that you really haven`t read them...or understood them.

I`m not being agressive. I just want him to at least criticize something with valid points.

We both agree that we don`t want Chris Reeve, dumbass, coward Clark. So why the hell doesn`t he criticize Maggin for liking it, then?

All his arguments make no sense, that`s all.

I guess my beef with Byrne's Clark wasn't that he should have been depicted as weak or a clutz, but he just seemed too together, too confident. I like Clark humble, although extremely competent. I know he was going for the tougher George Reeves Clark (Reeves Clark was tougher than Byrne's Superman even), but to me he just came off as an ultra-successful yuppie. To me Clark should be socially awkward, very soft and retiring...he should seem humble and constantly be underestimated by the people around him, until he (once again) gets the job done, then they realize they were stupid to underestimate him in the first place. I think you can learn a lot about people from how they treat a guy like Clark.

Just because I don't really want the Chris Reeve Clark for now doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining at times. The one scene with his Clark I really hated was in Superman II after he lost his powers when he got his ass kicked in that diner. When he lost his powers as Clark in "Who Took The Super out of Superman" he kicked Lombards ass and got Lois in the sack. So seeing a powerless Clark as a wimp when he wasn't acting...that pissed me off.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I dont remember the movie that well, but isnt that scene supposed to convey Clark's first time as a human being and the fragility and pain that comes with it?

 

[Kurosawa]

I dont remember the movie that well, but isnt that scene supposed to convey Clark's first time as a human being and the fragility and pain that comes with it?

Yeah, they just took it too far. I've never liked it Pre or Post Crisis where Supes loses his powers and just gets immediately owned. Maybe if its very intense Green K exposure or very extended Green K exposure, but when he just gets a flash of Green K and he's down...never liked that and Byrne did a good thing to get away from that, although it was inconsistent in Pre-Crisis comics too. Sometimes the slightest exposure took him out, sometimes he had time to react. But scenes where he gets exposed to Gold K or Red solar radiation and then gets beat easy...f that.

Another good thing Byrne did: having Kryptonite have affects on humans as well as Kryptonians. Siegel intended for it to work that way in his K-Metal story that DC axed in 1940. What Smallville did was along the lines of what he had planned when DC took that story and that direction from him. That was when they lost creative control of the series.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I liked how Singer did it. Kryptonite didnt instantly make him drop to the floor but it took some seconds for him to feel the effects. However, he was standing on a K island and in that specific case he should have dropped to the floor almost instantly.

 

[RetroNaz]

I liked how Singer did it. Kryptonite didnt instantly make him drop to the floor but it took some seconds for him to feel the effects. However, he was standing on a K island and in that specific case he should have dropped to the floor almost instantly.

I thought it was great how they did the kryptonite stuff in Singers movie. But I did hate the fact that not even a whole damn island made of the stuff wouldn't kill him.

 

[Webhead2006]

I'm approaching this whole thing not so much as a fan of the comics, but more as a fan of movies and what would make for the most entertaining movie.

Personally, I think that would be a modern day retelling of Superman.

I'd like to have Clark a smart, sophisticated guy that just manages to stay hidden in the background not just due to his quiet persona, but because he is a damn good reporter always out doing his job. He doesn't sit down long enough for people to put two and two toegthor.

This will totally get me flamed here, but I would like to see Clark (when he changes into Superman) change either at his apartment or at the Daily Planet. I don't want to have the suit hidden under his work clothes because it just doesn't seem realistic enough to have a full Superman suit and cape hidden under his Clark clothes.

I'd like him to want Lois to love his Clark personality - who he really is. His Superman persona is simply that. A persona. One that he does because he wants the world in which he now calls his home to be a better place. He's Superman to inspire the good in people, and I'd like to see him preach that a little bit when reporters/government ask why he is here.

I want to see his human parents alive and well.

And I want to see Superman show contempt for the human race at times, I want to see that he can still be alien - and that Lois shows him how to be a good person (human) and what it means to be a real hero.

Last but not least, I want him to face an alien nemesis this time around, one that brings Kryptonite with them (accidentally?) so we can have a valid reason why there is Kryptonite on Earth.

Good points here man.I would agree with you on them all.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

The one scene with his Clark I really hated was in Superman II after he lost his powers when he got his ass kicked in that diner. When he lost his powers as Clark in "Who Took The Super out of Superman" he kicked Lombards ass and got Lois in the sack. So seeing a powerless Clark as a wimp when he wasn't acting...that pissed me off.

Quoted for Truth.

I may not agree with you on everything, but on this matter I do 100%.

Superman even without powers should still be an A+ physical specimen of a man. Stronger than most men, powers or not.

That is actually one of my criteria on how a Superman actor should look. I want him to look like someone who could easily kick MY ass, even without powers.

 

[RetroNaz]

Good points here man.I would agree with you on them all.

Cheers dude