The Official Writer & Storyline Thread

[BATZARRO WWD]

I think it goes without saying, if it's an origin story, redoing the overnightness of the older films won't do it. But Smallville is too much, I don't know if it makes sense to have a whole lot of "Clark" heroics. I think Batman Begins would be a clearer example, than Smallville, where they build up and show where each of the elements that make up the hero come in.

 

[Showtime]

As I talked about with Spirited Away via PM, he is basically refering to Birthright from what I can gather.

 

[OwlBoy]

The Samaritan? From Astro City?

 

[JamalYIgle]

As I talked about with Spirited Away via PM, he is basically refering to Birthright from what I can gather.

except he was always refereed to as Superman in Birthright.

 

[Showtime]

except he was always refereed to as Superman in Birthright.

Even at the beginning while in W. Africa? I didn't remember it that way. Wouldn't his time in West Africa follow the same Good Samaritan background since he was not yet Superman?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Holy crap! Am I the only person that understood the question?

Pssst.... folks? Not sure what you all are going on about, but there is no "The Samaritan" character in SV. Never has been, and to my knowledge, never will be. Spirited Away is talking about an extended origin idea for the next film, where Clark Kent experiments with his public identity before he's given the name, "Superman." How should he appear to the world? Would he have a public identity beyond being a red/blue blur or some nameless good samaritan? This is approximately where we are in SV right now; Clark wants to continue to use his abilities to help people but he doesn't want to be recognized in the process. He's also seen the good that comes from being a symbol of hope versus just an urban legend. This is a conundrum for him because he needs to be SEEN in order to be a symbol. So therein lies the identity dilemma. SA wanted to know if folks would rather see something like that in the next film or stick with the smash-cut approach of intro'ing Supes ala STM, hence the "age-old, overnight-ness of the original movie" comment.

And you just contradicted yourself. I saw last weeks episode. And Lois was trying to convince Clark that she'd come up with a good name for him...

However, I think I answered the question in-depth...
There was no experiment with his identities. The original comics even had him as an overnight hero.
Clark's time before he becomes Superman is spent finding out who HE is. What kind of human he should be. Where he comes from... Not what kind of hero he will be.

 

[NeoRanger]

I have no idea about this "Samaritan" or what the hell's Smallville's smoking these days, but that aside, the only thing I get from the first post is the direction of a mysterious "hero" that a few Superman media have taken over the years (namely Birthright and TAS, to a lesser extend).

 

[AgentPat]

Hence why I said I can't begin to understand the thread, it was an open question to anybody.

I dunno, it sounded flip. Sorry. If I don't understand a question, I either ignore it or ask the poster to clarify. But that's just me.

The Samaritan? From Astro City?

I guess so. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_(comics) isn't in SV, so the character analogy doesn't work in context with the show.

except he was always refereed to as Superman in Birthright.

Exactly. Do fans want that? Or would a slower progression be acceptable?

And you just contradicted yourself.

No, I didn't. There is no "The Samaritan" character in SV.

I saw last weeks episode. And Lois was trying to convince Clark that she'd come up with a good name for him...

Chloe talked about pen names, not Lois. Lois said she would be the first reporter to interview the red/blue blur hero.

However, I think I answered the question in-depth...

You referenced The Samaritan. That character doesn't exist in SV.

There was no experiment with his identities.

Clark hasn't had a need to in SV yet. But as the last few eps have shown, he will need to come up with a better approach, because Metropolis is a much bigger place than Smallville, KS.

The original comics even had him as an overnight hero.

Yes. So to paraphrase SA's original question, would people prefer that, or would they rather see a slower build?

Clark's time before he becomes Superman is spent finding out who HE is. What kind of human he should be. Where he comes from... Not what kind of hero he will be.

This is another approach, but it has the potential to be an extensive one ala SV. Some fans say they don't want an origin; they want to start with Superman already a known character. Personally, I think there's a lot of magic lost with that approach. The audience isn't given proper time to develop an emotional attachment to the character as portrayed by the new actor. This was one of the biggest mistakes I feel Singer made. I didn't give a rat's arse about Superman's problems because I didn't get to see many of the crucial parts of the plot that put him in those predicaments. It's a visual medium; show me don't tell me. And no, referencing a 30 year old film for plot info doesn't cut it. But I digress...

...the only thing I get from the first post is the direction of a mysterious "hero" that a few Superman media have taken over the years (namely Birthright and TAS, to a lesser extend).

That's all that should be gotten from the question. Referencing "The Samaritan" character in context with SV is going to throw a LOT of people off, particularly those who don't watch the show. SV hasn't retconned Clark's Superman identity since he doesn't have that visage yet. They've merely extrapolated on this stage of his life, much to the chagrin of some who feel it's only being "dragged out" at this point. YMMV.

 

[Showtime]

I dunno, it sounded flip. Sorry. If I don't understand a question, I either ignore it or ask the poster to clarify. But that's just me.

That's why everybody is different. We don't all do the same things.

 

[JamalYIgle]

Even at the beginning while in W. Africa? I didn't remember it that way. Wouldn't his time in West Africa follow the same Good Samaritan background since he was not yet Superman?

Even in Africa he was never referred to as"A good Samaritan" he went out of his way to make sure he wasn't seen.

 

[Showtime]

I understand. I'd have to go back and read it again. For some reason I believe you are more well versed in comics then me, not sure why I believe that.

 

[I Am The Knight]

The Samaritan? What bollocks.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

I dunno, it sounded flip. Sorry. If I don't understand a question, I either ignore it or ask the poster to clarify. But that's just me.

I guess so. But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritan_(comics) isn't in SV, so the character analogy doesn't work in context with the show.

Exactly. Do fans want that? Or would a slower progression be acceptable?

No, I didn't. There is no "The Samaritan" character in SV.

Chloe talked about pen names, not Lois. Lois said she would be the first reporter to interview the red/blue blur hero.

You referenced The Samaritan. That character doesn't exist in SV.

Clark hasn't had a need to in SV yet. But as the last few eps have shown, he will need to come up with a better approach, because Metropolis is a much bigger place than Smallville, KS.

Yes. So to paraphrase SA's original question, would people prefer that, or would they rather see a slower build?

This is another approach, but it has the potential to be an extensive one ala SV. Some fans say they don't want an origin; they want to start with Superman already a known character. Personally, I think there's a lot of magic lost with that approach. The audience isn't given proper time to develop an emotional attachment to the character as portrayed by the new actor. This was one of the biggest mistakes I feel Singer made. I didn't give a rat's arse about Superman's problems because I didn't get to see many of the crucial parts of the plot that put him in those predicaments. It's a visual medium; show me don't tell me. And no, referencing a 30 year old film for plot info doesn't cut it. But I digress...

That's all that should be gotten from the question. Referencing "The Samaritan" character in context with SV is going to throw a LOT of people off, particularly those who don't watch the show. SV hasn't retconned Clark's Superman identity since he doesn't have that visage yet. They've merely extrapolated on this stage of his life, much to the chagrin of some who feel it's only being "dragged out" at this point. YMMV.

Excuse me: YES, the character does exsist in SV. Just not by name. And whether it was Chloe or Lois is irrelevant. It was still brought up. They're still going to try to name him "The Samaritan", and you still contradicted yourself.

And the concept is entirely off base with the Superman Mythos. So, again, I answered the question in-depth: NO. Because it's not really what Clark does. And if we want a real Superman, we should keep THE TRADITIONAL story: Clark acts in the heat of the moment, saving innocent people, and due to the article realizes he needs to alter his appearance... both as Clark Kent, Mild-Mannered Reporter, and the name "Superman".

If you couldn't get that from my earlier posts...
well i feel sorry for you.

 

[badboy00z]

At the end of episode 6 it was the Martian Man Hunter who said he "has to run faster and faster interference on these mysterious good Samaritan reports."

So technically there is no "The Samaritan" character. He is only referred to as "the mysterious hero" by Jimmy and others.

I think this would be a good idea for an origin story. It goes in line with the comic where Clark saves the plane and people see him do it. He then wears the costume when he does his business and Lois gives him the name of Superman.

 

[Dave_W]

I like the idea of Clark giving his alter ego a trial run instead of getting the whole imagery/iconography right the first time. It worked for Spider-Man and Batman Begins. The only problem with that is, Superman would be the secret identity and not Clark and I know in some parts of this board that's heresy!

 

[OwlBoy]

Thing is the wrestling thing in Spider-Man and the trial run in Batman is that those are established parts of their origins, not Superman's.

 

[Dave_W]

True, but if WB want to go the dark and realistic route then it would make more sense than Clark thinking "I know, tomorrow I'm going to wear blue tights and a red cape and I shall be forever known as Superman!"

Having him wanting to just help/save people at first, and then realising he can do so much more as a symbol (like Batman Begins) is a more powerful and emotive storyline and fits in much more with the character of Superman than just doing it all overnight as a whim. He'd be doing it for the people as well as to hide his identity. That's how I see it anyway. Let's give some real depth to the character!!!!!

 

[OwlBoy]

That's why I think the movie should take place in the DCU, a world where there have been heroes but none in a long time. All you have to do is have Johnathan Kent pull out an old Alan Scott Green Lantern comic and give Clark the idea.

 

[SatEL]

That's why I think the movie should take place in the DCU, a world where there have been heroes but none in a long time. All you have to do is have Johnathan Kent pull out an old Alan Scott Green Lantern comic and give Clark the idea.

Superman is the one that inspires not the other way around.

 

[Ultimate_Superman]

That's why I think the movie should take place in the DCU, a world where there have been heroes but none in a long time. All you have to do is have Johnathan Kent pull out an old Alan Scott Green Lantern comic and give Clark the idea.

Superman is the one that inspires not the other way around.

To be honest I do like this idea. I mean I always liked the idea that the JSA were really the first heroes during the WWII era and then you have Superman (who is always known as the first alien on Earth) leading the heroes or inspiring the heroes of today. It works a lot better that way IMO.

 

[stargazer]

I don't like this idea. I like the traditional mythos, and it should stay that way, otherwise the legend will be watered it down.

I think people wanna see a movie about Superman saving the world the way he always does. At least I do.

 

[OwlBoy]

Superman is the one that inspires not the other way around.

Even the most inspiring have to draw inspiration.

 

[Man of Tomorrow]

So Smallville's first appearance of this 'Superdude' is Green Arrow dressed up in Blue hooded sweater and red cape?

Honestly, I don't think the Superman movie should adapt anything from Smallville.

 

[badboy00z]

I like the idea of Clark giving his alter ego a trial run instead of getting the whole imagery/iconography right the first time. It worked for Spider-Man and Batman Begins. The only problem with that is, Superman would be the secret identity and not Clark and I know in some parts of this board that's heresy!

That makes sense because he was always Clark and needs to hide what he can do.

 

[Dave_W]

So Smallville's first appearance of this 'Superdude' is Green Arrow dressed up in Blue hooded sweater and red cape?

Honestly, I don't think the Superman movie should adapt anything from Smallville.

I don't think anyone is saying take it out of SV and stick it in a movie. At least Smallville is trying something a bit different with the origin of the suit.

Here's what bothers me about S:TM. I take it it's considered as canon? If not then ignore the next bit. After Supes has flown around getting cats out of trees and dropping boats off in the middle of the street, he goes back to the Fortress where Jor-El says something along the lines of "You are revealed to the world, so be it". That particular line, to me, sounds like Supes wasn't meant to be known by the people. If that's the case, why the hell would you fly around in a bright blue and red suit if you didn't want to be seen? At least the Smallville version has a reason for it being bold!