I've been quite happy about the participation level we've had lately concerning how to reboot Superman. Some interesting ideas have been tossed out a debate has even started.Well, MilkyWayWriter sent me his vision of Superman and I've got it right here for you. Is the best I've read? No. Is it original? Yeah. Would I use it to reboot Superman? Personally no. That's not to say it isn't good. It's just not something I'd do myself. We all know I have my own idea.
Now, for some damn reason, the HTML for splitting posts so his writing doesn't take up an enormous space on the front page isn't working. If you want to read it, send me an email and I'll send it to you as a .pdf file. Then come back here to discuss it.
savesupermancampaign@gmail.com
I've edited and critiqued hundreds of manuscripts/screenplays over the years and my credo: "If someone takes the time to read your work and finds 100 things wrong with it and you agree with only one, that person has done you a favor."
ReplyDeleteThanks, gentlemen.
Well i would like to take a look at it.
ReplyDeleteWe love Superman. I have my Superman and you have yours; each and every one of us has his or her own true Superman whom we will defend against all comers, especially ‘wise-ass’ so-call ‘Superman fans.’
ReplyDeleteThat’s what having a Superman does!
Been there, haven’t we?
Now here’s where I run into trouble again. Many see Superman as a 70-year old American icon, first in comic books, then on radio, the movies, TV and the stage in animated and live-action adventures.
I’m sorry, but that’s not enough. Superman has been the hero of more stories by more writers and artists and actors and filmmakers than any fictional character in history. Superman is the greatest hero in all of literature.
Any ‘literary lights’ want to argue that? Bring it on. For any Superman fan to deny him the pinnacle of the pyramid of heroes would be unthinkable.
But over time, have new generations of heroes surpassed the Man of Steel? Has the New Millennium left Superman behind?
Billions of people around the world already know about Superman’s origin, his costume, his powers and his purpose, and of course, that he is Clark Kent.
Therein lies the greatest danger Superman has ever faced – because so many already know his story, He’s become a dated ‘been there, done that’ symbol. When more Americans see the red ‘s’ caped star, not as a hero fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way, but as a professional basketball player challenged by his dunking nemesis ‘Krypto-nat,’ is our Superman on verge of becoming an immortal nobody?
Not to us, because each of us has a Superman. Please never forget that while we may sit stubbornly in different pews, we are all in the same ‘church.’
But should we forever stand by our eternal champion or accept, even welcome an ever-changing hero?
“Change Superman?” cried the SV/SR/DCU factions. “Oh, no, not my Superman!”
Not his origin, his costume, his powers, his SMALLVILLE experience or his DCU legacy and WB interpretations. Never to deny or usurp the Superman we’ve loved all our lives.
Not Superman, but the way we see Superman.
What Superman needs is a new THERE to get to. A new TRUTH to discover.
And fans with the confidence to believe that Superman has the strength and the power, and the TRUTH to leave everyone bind, including our own ideal Superman.
As so many of you took time out of your lives and money out of your pockets to see a sun-powered stalking deadbeat Dad, you think you guys might cut me some slack?
Okay milkywaywriter, I’ve read your story, and I’ll give you some constructive criticism if you don’t mind:
ReplyDelete1.) Your dialogue. As I read your script it seemed like you weren’t writing characters, just ideas, if you get what I mean. When a character says something, it needs to be because they are reacting to the story elements happening around them; they need to be real. Your characters didn’t’ seem real; they just seemed like plot devices that were only saying things to move things along. And when moments of realism would happen, it just sounded a bit too pretentious and corny.
2.) Your story. It was definitely original, and while your overarching idea, that little does Clark know, almost everyone on Earth is aware that Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same, was definitely interesting, it didn’t serve any sort of purpose within the story, it was just taken as a given, and left alone. When you introduce that sort of concept it needs to fit into the story organically, and it needs to affect things that are going on; okay, so everyone knows that Clark is Superman, but how? And if that many people know, then how is Clark completely unaware of this? Don’t people talk about it on the news? And if not, then why is the entire media, and the planet, committed to maintaining this ruse? A concept that big can’t just be introduced and taken as a given, it needs to be explained, and it needs to work within the story. Take the Incredibles for example; in that film all of the heroes are outlawed for a reason, the Parr’s keep having to move because super-powered related incidents keep destroying their homes, so they move before they are “found out.” Without that aspect of the story, the entire movie would fall apart. Bob and his friend sneaking out and performing acts of heroics in secret wouldn’t make any sense, why not just put on their costumes? And why did they quit in the first place? Your story however wouldn’t: Superman must save Metropolis from the evil alien Braniac, who has shrunken it and added it to his collection of shrunken cities; and also, the entire planet knows that Clark Kent and Superman are one and the same. Take away that last part, and the story still works: Superman must save Metropolis from the evil alien Braniac, who has shrunken it and added it to his collection of shrunken cities. Basically what I’m saying is this: You can’t reinvent the wheel without first telling people how exactly they can screw it onto their cars, otherwise no one will buy your wheel, and they’ll just stick with their old tires.
I hope I’m making sense; I’m not attacking you or your ability to write, just giving out constructive criticisms, as I said. I won’t argue with your philosophy on how a Superman reboot is made, this isn’t the place for that.
Oh and also: I'm in no way saying that your a bad writer, because your definitely not.
ReplyDeleteALS:
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, THANK YOU.
Many interesting points, but the most telling is the 'secret identity' inversion. In EVERY Superman version I've read, Superman wants to be among us. Okay, in BRAVE NEW SUPERMAN we know he's Clark Kent and you wanted a more thorough explanation, logic and backstory.
In short, you wanted to know MORE. Yes, this storyline still has a THERE to get to. It finishes with a new beginning rather than a dead end.
At 20 pages, this is a treatment and definitely needs 'fleshing out,' beginning with the truncated dialog.
More than anything else, I wanted SUPERMAN to define himself to us and to himself as well. That he is the star of his world and we want to live in it with him.
Thanks again.
But since you seemed to have included your philosophy, I'll respond anyway:
ReplyDeleteListen, you seem to be getting way to wrapped up in trying to be insightful; your forgetting why people like Superman. Listen, you don't completely change a character just because everyone already knows the basics. Those basics are his BACKSTORY, it's what exlains his characteristics. The key to making a good Superman film is NOT to just completely change everything, the key is to make a great Superman story that moves forward FROM the origin and backstory and supporting characters that everyone knows. You don't change the nature of his relationship with Lois or Perry or Jimmy just for the sake of changing it, you take the aspects of that established relationship and you ADD TO IT. That's one of the reasons your story idea just doesn't work, your trying so hard to do something different, that your forget to actually tell a compelling story, and the end result just comes out pretentious and uninteresting.
Wow, that sounded mean, didn't want to come off that way. Basically I'm saying this: Your treating Superman as a concept instead of a character, that's one of the other big problems that presented itself in your treatment. But again, you are indeed a great writer.
ReplyDeleteALS:
ReplyDeleteBut your criticism continues to zero in on vitals. Clark Kent's relationship with the Daily Planet who don't know he's Superman has got more explanations, backstory and multiple versions that to reboot it yet again, no matter how well, would be telling a Superman story we already know.
Turning the tables, Lois and Clark are now in opposite roles, opening up NEW possibilities and NEW places to go.
Does SUPERMAN really believe he's fooling the world as Clark Kent? How much does it matter as long as he can be one of us AS one of us?
What you read gives no indication of exactly waht SUPERMAN knows or feels about his 'secret' or 'open-secret' identity. That gives the character a NEW place to go and NEW truth to find out.
After SUPERMAN II, where did he have left to go? What did he need to find out?
TMW MAN
"TMW MAN"
ReplyDeleteAnd with THAT, ladies & gentlemen, he has come clean & fessed up. ;)
Oh, & I intend to read that when I have the time, but let's not forget. On a recent episode of SV, Clark revealed himself to the world, & we SAW what happened. At first it was like a gawking fan club, until everyone turned on him as the murderous, invading alien. He had to use the ring from the Legion to make things right.
So who's to say that in a Superman film that it wouldn't be a similiar situation?
"Clark Kent's relationship with the Daily Planet who don't know he's Superman has got more explanations, backstory and multiple versions that to reboot it yet again, no matter how well, would be telling a Superman story we already know."
ReplyDeleteMilkyway writer, I think what your not realizing is this: Clark's relationship with the people at the Daily Planet, who don't know that he's Superman isn't the story of Superman that a new film would be telling, it's the PREMISE. The audience already knows that Clark Kent works as a journalist for the daily planet, all the while concealing the fact that he is in fact Superman. That's not what the movie is about; if all the movie was about was the experiences of Clark attempting to hide his true identity as Superman from his co-workers then you'd be completely right, it WOULD be telling a story that everyone already knows. That isn't the story, however, it's just the premise. it's the part of the "Superman world" that the story is written around, just as Superman being sent to earth as a baby by his alien parents is also a part of the premise. That's why I don't want another origin story, because it WOULD be a story that everyone has already heard about. But a new Superman movie doesn't need to be another origin story, because everyone already knows the origin, what needs be done is to write a story featuring Superman, and the premise by which he exists, and how he reacts to a new situation that he's put in. Maybe that situation is represented by a new villain like Braniac or Parasite or Metallo that is putting the world in danger, and as the world's protector, Superman has to figure out how to stop the threat and figure out the source of it. And therein lies the way to reboot the Superman movie franchise. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, and you don't need to change the premise, or just do another explanation as to how that premise came about. Everyone knows the premise, so another explanation of it, or the introduction of a different premise aren't necessary, just move forward and tell a new Superman story.
And also, there are plenty of places for Superman to go with that premise in place: Not only the aforementioned storyline of the new villain I mentioned, but by highlighting this fact as well: Superman is the disguise, not Clark Kent. Clark wears the costume so the colorful garb and his amazing powers will distract people from who is; a man who was raised on a farm by loving parents, and who considers himself to be a normal human despite the fact that he isn't one. How does a normal person cope with being so powerful? How does he not lose himself in the Superman persona that the media invented for him? Those are all of the interesting "character" questions that can be endlessly explored in several Superman films that add the character development to make us care about Superman, and make us root for him as not just the concept of a great literary hero, but as a real person that we care about and can relate to.
Do you know what I mean? I'm not even disagreeing with you, You in essence are saying that a new Superman movie shouldn't just be another retelling of his origin, and of how he crafts his double identity. I agree with you completely. But what I'm trying to say is that there's more to the ongoing adventures of Superman than just that story, that's just the introduction that sets the premise for future stories. A new superman film does not need to retell that story, it just needs to take that premise and the characters and use it as a launching point to create a new and compelling situation for the characters to deal with.
“Yo, Milky Way Writer, KEVIN, your template for your BRAVE NEW SUPERMAN is silly, stupid, unbelievable and impossible!”
ReplyDeleteOkay, guys. Is this any better?
‘Almost all the world admires Superman as a great hero. More than
three billion know that he is Clark Kent.’
Brave New Man of Steel
“Earth to Kevin, you still don’t get it. The idea that all the world knows Superman’s ‘secret identity’ and he doesn’t is laughable, insipid and just plain dumb!”
Hmm. Gentlemen you DO raise a good point.
While I’m stuffing it in my pipe and smoking it, let’s put the old shoe on the other foot. In the 21st Century, Superman will be the most photographed man in the world. With two decent headshots and ten minutes, a CSI lab could make him as Clark Kent.
The Impossibility Contest ends in a draw.
Great fiction is a big lie which tells a new truth. ‘Superman is Clark Kent’ is the greatest lie in the history of American fiction. Believed instantly by millions and by billions for seventy years, Siegel and Shuster’s big lie has become a new truth.
But you guys are absolutely right…
‘Almost all the world admires Superman as a great hero. More than
three billion know that he is Clark Kent.’
Yes, that it’s silly, stupid, unbelievable and dumb we can debate. But it also happens to be TRUE.
Think about it: SUPERMAN’S got a big new lie: the Truth.
We fanboys have bending over backwards to believe big lies all our lives---superheroes, monsters, ghosts, you name it. Give us a big new lie and we’ll believe it…IF THERE’S PAYBACK!
Or as H.G. Wells wrote: “Invent the impossible, domesticate the impossible, and while the illusion holds, get on with the story.”
Over 70 years, Siegel and Shuster’s ‘impossible’ has become so ‘domesticated; that the ‘illusion’ no longer ‘holds’ and the story’s got no place to ‘get on’ to.
Think about this: from the moment every one of us could read or watch a screen, we’ve believed that Superman is Clark Kent and he still hasn’t found out about it.
The only points I don't agree with in the idea are as follows...
ReplyDelete1. Jor-El and Lara being teens.
2. People knowing Clark is Superman.
3. Kandor being part of a reboot and not a sequel.
The rest I can live with if tweaked a little here and there.
Other than THAT, Steve, what did you think of the play?
ReplyDelete"Big Lies"?? They are called stories my friend, and if you're having trouble willingly suspending your disbelief in order to read them properly, then that is your problem and yours alone, it has nothing to do with the aspects of the story. Creating a Superman story where the world knows that he's superman, just because in "real life" everyone knows he's Superman, because we read about him in comics and watch him in movies, is missing the point of the point of story-telling entirely.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read your story yet, but I have to say that. I have been put off by your holier than thou attitude. I don't think that everyone believing that Clark/Superman is a joke does the character any justice. Everyone needs to keep secret that they know who he really is. Like that is believable in the least. If ppl knew who he was, then it would be impossible for him to have any kind of normal life. Can you say that his advisaries would just let him go on his merry way. They would attack every one that he holds dear.
ReplyDeleteI am just going by the posts of ppl who have already read your story. I will be glad to read it, but I have to say that you have not made many friends here with your tearing apart everyone elses ideas and practically force feeding us yours.
Steve go ahead and send me his story please. I can't give my entire honest opinion without doing so.
There is 70 years of incredible mythos to draw upon...why reinvent the character?
A fantasy, science fiction or superhero film must project one word above all others: Not SEX or ACTION, but YOUNG.
ReplyDeleteWATCHMEN and SPIRIT said OLD and suffered for it. SUPERMAN RETURNS came on as aged as Marlon Brandon and never got a minute younger.
SUPERMAN’s parents are (late) teens because they wanted to be.
And let's go from there.
SHARON wrote: "There is 70 years of incredible mythos to draw upon...why reinvent the character?"
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the paradox of Superman: do we go forward by going back?
'Reinvent SUPERMAN'? NEVER! Give us a fresh new way to see him...it's NOT what we already know about Superman, but what he can make us burn to find out.
Other than those few points, I do think it was a good start. As ALS has pointed out, it just wasn't fully fleshed out.
ReplyDeleteI do understand what your saying about not rehashing the past, but if you ignore it, you're in a sense completely reinventing the character and nobody wants that. Nor does anyone believe that would succeed.
The object is to bring something in regards to Superman onto the big screen we haven't seen in that format before. Something huge. Something epic.
What many fans want (I'd even dare say most fans) is to see a storyline they've read and loved turned into live action. Now I'm in no way saying that a comic story arc should be simply transplanted to screen, but by reading what has been written, you can see what worked and what didn't. It's entirely possible to take the best elements of the entire 70 years of Superman lore, combine them, alter them just enough into a present day story, toss in some real world issues, and using current technology create a trilogy unlike ANYTHING we've seen on screen before. My story did just that.
So why have none of us READ your story, Steve?
ReplyDeleteAre you going to put it up and invite readers?
Most people have. It was posted as a thread topic on SaveSuperman.com a month after we went live.
ReplyDeleteAny story that has the premise of everyone (or almost everyone) knowing that Clark is Superman is just ridiculous. I don't care if you get everything else right, the dual identity is a core part of the character. Taking that away is, whether you like it or not, creating a new character. It worked in Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow" because he was "ending the Superman mythos" as it were, but to change that is to butcher the character.
ReplyDeleteI agree Colors.
ReplyDeleteAnd MilkyWayWriter, since you didn't get to read my story on SaveSuperman.com, I'll give you a quick synopsis...
First, the origin. In my idea, this is covered through flashbacks during a sequence in Act 2. Instead, Lois is introduced first. Then, Clark is moving into his new apartment in Metropolis. He climbs out his kitchen window onto the fire escape and flies off to begin the opening credits.
Lois is portrayed as a fearless hard ass. She grew up on Army bases. Her dad is a general. Being an investigative reporter was the only legal way for her to be right in the middle of everything.
Clark is portrayed as a man. Not a clumsy oaf who is afraid of his shadow. He is a reporter. He acts like one. He is however quiet, shy, and tries to keep to himself. The kind of person that you could (and most likely did) pass in the hallway in high school but never even notice.
Lex Luthor is a billionaire tycoon. Think of Bill Gates if he wanted to rule the world. He is the owner and CEO of LexCorp (formerly LutherCorp and that is also a subplot) which is the leader in technological advances of nearly every industry and supplier of military weapons to the U.S. (and those with enough money).
The first villain is Metallo. He is created by Professor Emmet Vale, a scientist employed at LexCorp for Lex's super-soldier project that had been started by his father. Under the guise of being for humanitarian reasons, Lex secretly has a contract with an unknown (this is also a subplot) person within the U.S. Government to provide an army. The reporter (John Corben) who Clark replaces was killed in a car crash but donated his organs. His brain is secretly used for the "Metallo" prototype. Upon the appearance of Superman, Lex convinces his government contact that he is part of an invasion and gets approval to "test" his new soldier. The entire world, at first, reacts as they would in real life to an alien.
A second villain emerges. Brainiac reveals himself as the central core of all technology produced at LexCorp. Lionel had found an object the same day that Jonathon and Martha found Clark. After years of studying it, he was able to activate it. However, what he didn't know is that it was only in stasis and was in truth a living computer. Manipulating his every move, Brainiac helped Lionel build an empire that was about to culminate in a world war.
Superman doesn't just fight Metallo and Brainiac in this story. He takes on human issues. Real issues. A superhero doesn't need to have or use super powers. I make Superman show his emotional side that was instilled in him by Martha and Jonathon Kent. He's forced to make decisions and look inside himself. He's forced to question his very beliefs and his purpose in life.
That's just the first story. I wrote a trilogy that included Doomsday and ultimately Darkseid. I also included cameo appearances of Batman and Wonder Woman so it could lead to a Justice League story.
If you like that, great. If not, you're entitled to your opinion. I like the open discussion because as fans we need to come together to accomplish anything.
I like that quite a bit, Steve. I sincerely hope that I see it in the theaters some day.
ReplyDelete"If you like that, great. If not, you're entitled to your opinion. I like the open discussion because as fans we need to come together to accomplish anything."
ReplyDeleteI rather like it. From what you posted, it could play as a loose sequel to SV... but it also looks different enough (not to mention post-COIE'ish) that it can be interpreted some other way.
If only Singerman had been that faithful to the mythos...
In any story, THE question: What is the story ABOUT?
ReplyDeleteImagine two pieces of rope lying across a table. Same thickness, same length, but one is mountain-climbing rope and the other is ordinary clothesline. The difference is that inside the mountain-climbing rope is a thin, but very strong cable.
Telling a story is not unlike taking a reader up a mountain. That cable is your ABOUT. If the outer weave frays, the cable will save your life. Needless to say, if you’re climbing with clothesline, sooner or later you’re going to take a fatal fall.
The first two SUPERMAN films, which we’ve seen countless times and know quite well, were ABOUT this superpowered Kryptonian’s quest for humanity.
“Quest for humanity?” What did you think Dickens’ ‘Mr Scrooge’ and Shelley’s Frankenstein’s “monster” were ABOUT?
In the first film, SUPERMAN learns to ‘pass’ as Clark Kent and falls in love with Lois Lane. In II, he is willing to give up BEING Superman to achieve complete humanity. However, to save earth, he sacrifices his ‘complete humanity’ and again becomes SUPERMAN.
I’d like to believe that we all agree that SUPERMAN’s ‘quest for humanity’ has fully succeeded and that he is as, or more human than any of us.
So where to from THERE?
Where’s the UP?
The last three films were ‘clothesline’ stories ABOUT 100 minutes each. All took fatal falls because, at their core, they weren’t ABOUT anything.
In attempting to make us see SUPERMAN from a fresh perspective, I had to write a story about what too many people believe SUPERMAN is incapable of:
CHANGE.
SUPERMAN is offered the chance to live forever in eternal sameness. (Which is what so many people believe he’s been doing for 30 years.) But he refuses to be ‘an immortal nobody.’ Moreover, he is NOT a God or space alien, and no bigger than any of us.
As far as the ‘secret identity’ being ‘ridiculous’…True, EITHER way you play it, it’s been ‘ridiculous’ for 70 years. That’s the MAGIC of Superman. But as Clark Kent has been done over and over and over for so long, it’s worse than being ‘ridiculous,’ it’s OLD and PLAYED OUT.
The notion that I did not respect the mythos is unjustified. On the contrary, I stuck to the mythos all the way. (Unless you are totally locked into him having middle-aged parents. Why is that?)
I did NOT change SUPERMAN, but I did change the way we see Superman because Superman has to be ABOUT change.
Of course, that’s the last thing too many SUPERMAN fans are willing to accept.
Steve wrote:
ReplyDelete"Superman doesn't just fight Metallo and Brainiac in this story. He takes on human issues. Real issues. A superhero doesn't need to have or use super powers. I make Superman show his emotional side that was instilled in him by Martha and Jonathon Kent. He's forced to make decisions and look inside himself. He's forced to question his very beliefs and his purpose in life."
As interesting as this may read, we ALREADY know that Superman is as human as any of us. We've ALREADY accepted and applauded SUPERMAN's humanity. At the heart of your story is an OLD rather than a NEW truth.
Not a question of "quality", but IMPACT. What NEW insight have you given us ABOUT Superman?
In writing BRAVE NEW SUPERMAN, I knew that the biggest obstacle was getting loyal fans to accept the reversal of the Clark Kent ‘secret identity.’
ReplyDeleteThat I have distorted or destroyed the Superman ‘mythos’ would seem to be an indefensible charge.
However…
IRON MAN, a second-tier MARVEL superhero, slaughtered SUPERMAN RETURNS at the box office. While the IM film was applauded, SR was universally condemned.
While IM had a superb cast, the movie was ABOUT Tony Stark’s quest for vindication. No more the ‘merchant of death,’ inventing and selling weapons to kill people, he would dedicate himself to saving lives.
That sticks closely enough to the IM ‘mythos’.
BUT…at the end of the film, after the supervillain has been vanquished and before the Avengers ‘tease’, Tony and Pepper go on about the ‘secret identity’ concept and the SHIELD agent supplies Stark with ‘solid proof’ to protect his ‘secret’.
Stark is having none of it, declaring to a room full of media, “I am Iron Man!”
Did Marvel fans take to the streets protesting a distortion or destruction of their superhero’s ‘mythos’?
No way, by foregoing the whole ‘secret identity’ issue, IRON MAN gave his story a NEW place to go and EXPANDED his audience.
Such is the challenge facing SUPERMAN. Rehashing and replaying the ‘mythos’ again and again for 30 years may placate Superman’s fans, but it hasn’t made many new ones.
But, your idea is different. You want the world to be aware of Superman/Clark Kent yet make Superman unaware that they know. That's a ridiculous plot. I get wanting to have the world know about Superman/Clark Kent. But, make him aware of it. Play it like Tony Stark, don't make it seem like the world is playing the biggest practical joke on the world's greatest protector.
ReplyDeleteThat is what many of us are railing against. I don't really care if you want to try and get rid of the secret identity, but don't make Superman a moron in the process. That gives NO respect to the character or his fans.
And, Iron Man crushing Superman Returns at the box office had NOTHING to do with the "Secret Identity".
For somebody who claims to love the character and is well versed in over 70 years of comic book lore your really come off as just, not getting it.
Again, Steve, you bring up an EXCELLENT point. But tell me, where did you get the idea that SUPERMAN is 'unaware' that all the world knows that he is Clark Kent?
ReplyDeleteFor his reassuring phone conversation with his mother? How often have we 'reassured' our parents simply to make them feel better?
The notion that SUPERMAN knows or does not know that his 'secret identity' has been compromised is never explored, but gives us a new place to go from here.
It's not that I want to 'get rid of' the secret identity, but to give the concept a new spin because the OLD secret identity has long since spun itself out.
Milkyway, The only reason Tony Stark revealed that he was Ironman in the Iron-Man film is because that's exactly how it is in the comics. It's core aspect of that character that eventually, his identity becomes public knowledge. Honestly, you're going on and on about how the concept of Superman's dual identity is stale, and yet IT IS NOT. Listen my friend, you seem to be nothing more than a fanboy who thinks that he has a good idea, and is trying to make himself sound endlessly insightful so that people will "buy" your idea, when in fact your idea presents quite clearly that you know nothing about the character. You're clearly not as big of a Superman fan as you say you are, as any fan, even one with a radical idea, would recognize that you do not need to change the premise of Superman in order to take the character in new and exciting directions. "the old secret identity has long since spun itself out" that is your opinion, it is not fact, and if your going to attempt to talk about your ideas for Superman then you better learn the difference between the two very quickly. There is nothing wrong with Superman's secret identity staying secret, and it's pretty clear that the only reason your trying to claim that it's "stale and spun-out" is because you're not a good enough writer to write a Superman story that keeps the premise of Superman intact, and uses it as a launching point. Why do you think that the secret identity is spun out? Your claiming that it is over and over again, and yet you provide no reasoning behind your claim, just that "it is". Again, if you can't think of a way to tell a new superman story without completely changing the character, than that's your problem, that illustrates your limitations as a writer, not the limitations of the character. Your arguments have no merit to them, they have no logic behind them, and it doesn't matter how many quotes from various writers you prattle off, or how insightful you try to sound, it doesn't change the fact that the only reason you think that superman's secret identity is stale and spun out is because YOU can't willingly suspend your disbelief to accept that aspect of the Superman mythology.
ReplyDeleteI'm done arguing with you. Because what your saying has nothing to do with Superman's secret identity ACTUALLY being stale, you just WANT to believe that is to justify your own feelings towards the character. It's like arguing with a child who insists that the sky is green. You can show him pictures, present all of the logical scientific evidence that exists to him, but the fact remains that he WANTS to believe that the sky is green, therefore he will shout it from the rooftops in the hopes that if he yells loud enough, then somehow the sky will ACTUALLY turn green.
Please understand that as this 'debate' among Superman continues, it can quickly descend into who's right and who's wrong. So we'll have vote to decide?
ReplyDeleteHardly the issue. As Superman fans we find ourselves up against a high thick wall: the universal perception that 'Superman is an iconic and 'secretly' Clark Kent.' Please, if you're going to do a reboot, don't make me go thru ALL THAT yet again.
Rather than fight each other, how do we change the non-fan perception of the greatest hero in all of literature?
Had I made the 'Clark Kent' reversal 'the ROCK upon which I had built my story,' then I am indeed a clod and not Clark. Instead, the notion that we know he is SUPERMAN gives us a new way of seeing him among us.
The conceit that anyone can do it better than 'Reeve' is a fool's pursuit that will weaken the Superman mythos even further.
(Whether you're an Obama supporter or not, the backbone of his international agenda is to change the way the world perceives America. To give this country and others a new place to go.)
Superman deserves no less.
K
Before this gets out of hand. PLEASE...Do not bring politics here. I won't even go into my position on what you said simply because opinions on matters of social or polital preference is how the forums at SaveSuperman.com became an uncontrolled fight club.
ReplyDeleteI'm not moderating comments, but I ask that everyone stays on topic. I didn't completely shut down because I made a commitment to the supporters and the fans. Please don't make me regret it.
I agree completely, political/social issue discussions will only derail this blog, as it derailed savesuperman.com, I agree that we should stick to Superman. If we have an entire website full of nothing but off-topic fighting, no one will take us seriously.
ReplyDeleteMilkyWayWriter...
ReplyDeleteI've gone back over nearly every post and I think there's something that you're not taking into consideration.
While we (those who frequent this site and others like it) know the Superman mythos or the basic idea of Superman, there is an entire generation out there who knows nothing about the character. Telling the best aspects of the 70 years worth of history in a modern way (like how Iron Man changed Vietnam to Afghanistan) and doing it in a way that hasn't been done on screen is the only way to give fans what they have wanted and give a new generation a reason to become a fan. Singer failed to do either because he wanted to recreate what Donner did.
Your quote from my idea above and saying that at the heart of it is an OLD rather than NEW truth is incorrect. I do realize that it sounds so, but the reason and way he is forced to look inside himself and make a choice is like nothing that has been done so far. Much like in Superman II when he returns to fight Zod, his decision to be a hero is the turning point in my story, but there is so much more to it that I just can't share again. It's nowhere near as simple as watching a news broadcast of Zod (or in my case Brainiac).
"IRON MAN, a second-tier MARVEL superhero, slaughtered SUPERMAN RETURNS at the box office. While the IM film was applauded, SR was universally condemned."
ReplyDeleteNot to go all Apologist here, but Singerman actually got some pretty decent reviews (likely BECAUSE it was such an intentional repudiation of superhero films in general and Superman in particular, something blowhard critics love).
As some other guy pointed out, Iron Man's dual identity becoming public knowledge is directly from the comics. So rather than bolster your argument, you just undermined it. Iron Man modernized the comics events but remained true to the basic spirit. THAT is why fanboys embraced it. Broader audiences embraced it because it gave them what they wanted from a summer popcorn flick.
Your "audiences want something NEW" line is, I would've thought, obviously bullshit. What audiences want is to be entertained. A Superman film done right (and by that, I mean one which DOESN'T bastardize the character) will do just that.
"Please understand that as this 'debate' among Superman continues, it can quickly descend into who's right and who's wrong."
I'm right and you're wrong. There, it's settled.
"Rather than fight each other, how do we change the non-fan perception of the greatest hero in all of literature?"
We don't change their perception by changing the character, we change it by offering them a great, action-packed film.
"The conceit that anyone can do it better than 'Reeve' is a fool's pursuit that will weaken the Superman mythos even further."
Reeve was the man, no question. His stands as the best version of Superman... thus far. However, he's only mortal and his performance is only definitive until some other guy comes along and blows him right out of the water. And it can happen. Your line of thinking is what crippled Singerman. "Nobody can do it better than [insert Donner bullshit here]." News flash- Reeve was not universally loved back in '77. That's clearly changed a lot in the ensuing decades but he had a bit of an up-hill climb in the eyes of some fans. Again, your line of thinking stagnates the character in the best case scenario. In the worst case scenario, it completely destroys him. The simple fact of the matter is that the Superman mythos have survived 70+ years largely untouched because they strike a chord with audiences.
You may as well let it go. You're not going to convince anybody who's opinion matters than the world knowing Superman's identity unbeknownst to Superman himself is ever going to work. Period.
And for whatever it's worth, I'll always be eternally grateful that you're in no position to muck up the character and his universe.
"Whether you're an Obama supporter or not, the backbone of his international agenda is to change the way the world perceives America. To give this country and others a new place to go"
Right about now, you should be happy that Steve closed this part of the discussion.
I read all 14 pages of your 'treatment' & can say that I'm glad that YOU'RE not in charge of the reboot script!
ReplyDelete1) Jimmy Olsen as an African-American. Now, disclaimer inserted here, I'm NOT being racial, so don't trump up the race card. I'm aware they changed Pete Ross on SV, but I accepted it because it worked, & even wished they hadn't written him out of the show. However, Jimmy Olsen is a FAR more known character, basically he's like the 'red-headed step-child', with the emphasis on red-head. So if it's not broke, don't fix it. Don't change the mythos just to be politically correct. Even black fans have stated that Supes shouldn't be black because, simply.....he isn't. So that's an unnecessary change.
2) Clark's 'cheerleading' section. Trouble breaks, so Kent heads to a storeroom. But WAIT! Perry gives us a play-by-play of his actions, with everyone rooting for him to change into Superman. Trouble is, Clark must be either too dumb to realize it, or he must've lost his SUPER HEARING! What's WRONG with this picture?!
3) Superman as the 'angry god'. I didn't like how you brought religion into it, & not because I'm against it; I'm actually for it, but NOT in a Superman film. Donner tried to do that, & more recently Singer, yet Singer made it even WORSE! I think it turned off even RELIGIOUS fans as well as others, & YOUR take, I believe, would be even worse as it borders on the sacreligious. So leave religion AND politics OUT of a Superman film.
So there you have it! Just some things I gleaned from reading your 'essay'.
This website must always be ABOUT a Superman Reboot.
ReplyDeleteLet is also be understood right now that I fully respect your personal passion for Superman whether it originated in the comics, the cartoons, the movies or the tv shows. Such is the incredible POWER of Superman!
‘Almost all the world admires the Man of Steel as a great hero. More than three billion people know that he is Clark Kent…
BRAVE NEW SUPERMAN
Bottom line: the reversal of the ‘Clark Kent – secret identity’ betrays the SUPERMAN mythos. By making you look at SUPERMAN from a new and different perspective, I have attacked your core beliefs which you have held all your lives.
In 2003, a novel was published, based on the premise that Jesus Christ married May Magdelan and had a child. Christian churchmen around the world were outraged. The book was condemned as blasphemy and heresy because it struck at the very bedrock of sacred scripture.
THE DA VINCI code sold 30,000,000 books, launched a full shelf of spin-offs and a blockbuster movie NOT because it questioned the teachings or Christ or sought to prove or disprove that He was the Son of God. The novel was NOT about ‘religion’ or the deity of Christ, but his HUMANITY – that Jesus was even more human that we had ever believed and that his blood flowed through the human race.
BRAVE NEW SUPERMAN does not revise or reimagine his origin, his Smallville experience, his costume, his powers or his purpose. The story shows a Superman who is NOT a God or a space alien, but a man we know, who above all else, wants to be one of us.
Christ and Da Vinci took us to a place we’d never been before to tell us a new truth.
So must Superman.
And you completely ignored my evaluation? WHY am I NOT surprised?! ;)
ReplyDeleteNon-amos:
ReplyDeleteI do NOT dispute your evaluation. On the contrary, you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!
But this is not ABOUT who's right or wrong.
Seventy years ago, Siegel and Schuster gave us, not just the archetype superhero who became the greatest hero in all of literature, but a fresh, new perspective on the HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
SUPERMAN took us to a place we’d never been before to tell us a new truth.
We are on this mission because each and every one of us went with them and believed in SUPERMAN whether via comics, cartoons or live-action. A SUPERMAN reboot is NOT about making The Man or Steel ‘different’ or ‘better’.
OUR Superman MUST be Superman.
However, there are as many ‘fallen’ Superman fans out there as ‘fallen’ Christians or any other denomination. When DA VINCI CODE exploded around the world, one priest said, “Any book that can compel so many to reexamine and debate the humanity of Jesus cannot be a bad thing.”
How the mighty have fallen. When was the last time anyone beyond his ever-shrinking fanbase has been given cause to talk about SUPERMAN as a unique human experience?
SUPERMAN Mythos can be equated to Holy Scripture in the sense that our belief in SUPERMAN is based on different ‘books’ ---DCU/SV/SR etc. I do NOT dispute anyone’s personal belief in his or her own personal SUPERMAN.
While we debate the endless incarnations of SUPERMAN, what we fail to come to grips with is how the rest of the world has to come to see Superman---a classic 20th Century icon who’s been around since before most of us were born. We know all we need to know about this ‘big, blue Boy Scout.’
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” goes the adage. Superman is NOT ‘broke’ and does not need to be rebooted or repaired.
This is not about US or Donner vs. Byrne, Smallville vs. Superboy, Reeves vs. Reeve, Routh vs Welling, NOT about our individual ideal Superman, but how the rest of the world has grown tired and weary of how they have been made to SEE Superman.
Our SUPER disconnect --- each of you sees and believes in a great hero. I do NOT want to ‘change’ him. But the world MUST be given a fresh perspective on the human experience that is SUPERMAN.
If we can start there, we might get someplace.
SMALLVILE has been fiercely debated on this website and others. What so many fans and non-fans refuse to understand is that SMALLVILLE has endured for 9 years and earned millions of fans because it gave us a new way of looking at the boy who would become SUPERMAN, a fresh perspective on the Clark Kent HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
ReplyDeleteThe man who created SUPERMAN also created SUPERBOY. Byrne expunged the Boy of Steel from the DCU canon a generation ago. Then came SMALLVILLE.
It’s not I believe that the Smallville experience should become the ‘new canon’ and continued or that Clark Kent’s boyhood should be rebooted, but that we adapt the MINDSET that created SMALLVILLE in the first place: NOT a ‘new’ or ‘changed’ Man of Steel, but a new way for all the world to SEE the greatest hero in all of literature.
"This is not about US or Donner vs. Byrne, Smallville vs. Superboy, Reeves vs. Reeve, Routh vs Welling, NOT about our individual ideal Superman, but how the rest of the world has grown tired and weary of how they have been made to SEE Superman."
ReplyDeleteThey don't SEE Superman very much. There's Lois & Clark, SV, STAS/JLA/JLU and not much else from the last fifteen years. You may be a hardcore Superman fan (although based upon your little pitch, I find that hard to imagine). Your perceptions as a Superman fan (if indeed that's what you are) are not the perceptions of John Q. Public, who just wants a good time at the movies.
"Our SUPER disconnect --- each of you sees and believes in a great hero. I do NOT want to ‘change’ him. But the world MUST be given a fresh perspective on the human experience that is SUPERMAN."
That's a decision Byrne came to regret, you forgot to mention that.
"The man who created SUPERMAN also created SUPERBOY. Byrne expunged the Boy of Steel from the DCU canon a generation ago. Then came SMALLVILLE."
When you come right down to it, SV is basically Superboy without the costume. Superboy is a stupid name, a stupid concept and it's hard to take it seriously.
"It’s not I believe that the Smallville experience should become the ‘new canon’ and continued or that Clark Kent’s boyhood should be rebooted, but that we adapt the MINDSET that created SMALLVILLE in the first place: NOT a ‘new’ or ‘changed’ Man of Steel, but a new way for all the world to SEE the greatest hero in all of literature."
I think it should become canon. SV (essentially a costume-less Superboy) does the same basic thing in terms of getting Clark to become Superman but it actually sends him through a legitimate character arc (as opposed to Superboy, which was little more than a teenage Superman). It results in the hero that we know, it just tells the story of his getting there in a way that mixes and matches from the best of Byrne reboot and the Pre-COIE comics. It doesn't change WHO THE CHARACTER IS.
Like it or not, your version DOES change the character. For starters, it's impossible to believe that basically the entire world could know that Clark is Superman without him finding out about it. IMPOSSIBLE. Second, it's equally impossible to believe that his enemies wouldn't know and that they wouldn't eventually target his friends and family. Also IMPOSSIBLE.
Those changes (and yes, that's what they are) require changing Superman's entire supporting cast, changing the world in which he lives and, not least, changing Superman himself.
All this to say that YOU'RE WRONG.
It's funny, the more you post, the more convinced I become that you know absolutely nothing about Superman or the mythos.
You continue to 'preach to the chior' rather than acknowledge why so many have the 'church.'
ReplyDeleteThis is NOT about YOU or I see Superman, but why so many have stopped looking.
We must either compel the world to see Superman from a fresh perspective or his 'mythos' will be remembered only by his flagging fanbase and 20th Century historians.
remember when they changed Superman to a light entity in the comic books with the ridiculous blue and white outfit?
ReplyDeletehow did that go with comic book readers tmw man?
Ya know, Superman might just need to be made fresh, NOT changed.
ReplyDeleteLook at the extensive comics history. The Superman titles would do well for awhile, probably even for decades in the years past. However, in more recent times, probably beginning in the 80's, things had to be 'shaken up' a bit as Superman was 'becoming boring' to a lot of the kiddies (emphasis on kiddies).
Byrne changed things as Supes sometimes was just TOO all-powerful, & while THAT was good, I think there was also some EGO involved in Byrne's case too. Alas, before long, Byrne was no longer even on the title, & THEN, a few years down the road, DC did
The Death of Superman' to revitalize sales & make him relevant again.
It worked....for awhile, right? That is, until fans once again became bored. And look at the last few years alone. Just how many CRISES has DC had by now anyway?!
I think the bottom line is that a lot of 'kiddies' are bored with Superman because of the whole 'goody two-shoes, super boy scout' image. They prefer characters like Spiderman because they're darker & have issues.
OK, so SOME fans are bored due to their PERCEPTION. So what needs to be done is make Superman RELEVANT again, only THIS time in the FILMS as opposed to the comics. Certainly Smallville has enjoyed its' success due to this very thing I'm talking about?!
Just make it so in the films as well!
Lib:
ReplyDeleteExcellent point!
And I'm NOT say I have any or all or the answers.
As a Superman stockholder, since the start of the New Millennium, have you seen the value of The Man of Steel rise, remain the same or continue to decline?
"As a Superman stockholder, since the start of the New Millennium,"
ReplyDeleteI've been one for the past 24 years. Basically since I've been able to open my eyes.
"have you seen the value of The Man of Steel rise, remain the same or continue to decline?"
It's been fairly static, largely because of a lack of any compelling product. Yeah, SV's good but it doesn't have the scope and production value of a big budget film. You're judging Superman by a standard that has yet to be adequately demonstrated. Singerman was a failure because it was a sequel to a film the majority of folks under the age of 30 have never seen. Don't confuse Bryan Singer's poor ideas with an overall disinterest in Superman.
A number of you have challenged my knowledge of the SUPERMAN ‘mythos’. I believe you should know how I feel about it.
ReplyDeleteWhen SUPERMAN first appeared, he stood alone.
SUPERMAN stood alone. And stunned the world!
Bring on the millions of comic books, spin-offs, take-offs and rip-offs, the radio show, the many TV series, and the movies, cartoons and video games, and for my money…
SUPERMAN still stands alone. And yet again, he can stun the world!
It’s not that all the other fictional heroes are beneath him, they’re not even in the picture.
'Crystal'?
"SUPERMAN still stands alone. And yet again, he can stun the world!
ReplyDeleteIt’s not that all the other fictional heroes are beneath him, they’re not even in the picture.
'Crystal'?"
No. It's not. At all. Because you don't seem to understand what makes Superman tick on any level whatsoever. The dual identity has been part of his MO from day one. Your willingness to overturn that tells me all I need to know about your "knowledge" of the character (to say nothing of human psychology).
"The dual identity has been part of his MO from day one."
ReplyDeleteWhy? WHY did Superman 'disguise' himself as Clark Kent?
(As you know so much about human psychology.)
Superman didn't disguise himself as Clark Kent. Jonathan and Martha disguised Kal-El as Clark Kent.
ReplyDeleteBut WHY did Siegel and Schuster create the duality of SUPERMAN and Clark Kent?
ReplyDeleteThink in terms of QUEST.
If you believe as I do that SUPERMAN is the greatest hero in all of literature, think not of Byrne or Donner or Singer, but of Joseph Campbell, the authority of the hero mythos.
What, above all, did Superman WANT?
Heroes, from Homer's Oddeyseus to Harry Potter want something and they pursue it. In the end, whether they deserve it or not, they get what they've been after.
That is the KEY to the genius of S % S and the very heart and spirit of Superman.
What does Superman WANT?
I myself may not be an expert on superman, i know many important details, characters, villains, and events that have taken place over his 70yr history. Personally comics wise i am/was always a marvel fan, spidey personally. But with superman i have enjoyed most of the various incarnations of superman i have seen/read about. But with superman you need to keep various important details intact. For example jorel-lara loving parents spare kal-el's life, krypton blow up causing kryptonite to appear down the road, johnthan and martha kent find and raise kal-el as a human and instill him with the good morals, and then clark is who kalel is and superman is the cover. ETc......
ReplyDeleteYes, Webhead.
ReplyDeleteAnd we ALL agree that this site is dedicated to the 'rebooting' of SUPERMAN.
Now, here's where I get in trouble again. Having done some rewriting in my time, there is only one unbreakable rule: Always, always, ALWAYS go back to word one.
Back to the very beginning to understand WHY Superman had the incredible impact that he did and WHY he has failed to capture today's audience as he did when he first appeared.
What must be understood that, by definition, the hero is on a quest.
SMALLVILLE is ABOUT Clark Kent's quest for his own humanity. Only AFTER he discovers that he is as human as we are, THEN he can become Superman.
Truth, Justice and the American Way is EXPECTED hero stuff, what made SUPERMAN unique is what he wanted most of all, was to be one of us.
Without the QUEST FOR HUMANITY, the hero has nothing to aspire to, and has no UP to go to.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Has Superman really failed to capture today's audience? I'll argue that Superman Returns failed to capture today's audience, for numerable reasons that the posters here have discussed at length. Superman himself is not the problem.
ReplyDeleteYes, there needs to be a reboot but that doesn't mean you rewrite everything about the character.
I'll liken it to restoring an old house. You replace old wiring, the plumbing, upgrade things to make it livable for a modern lifestyle but you also try to keep as much of the original elements of the house as you can. Otherwise you lose the charm and might as well have just built a completely new house.
Milywhite, it's hard to be sure if you're genuinely misguided or just a troll. You ignore what others write by not quoting them, you simply dismiss them by repeating your "change change change" mantra.
ReplyDeleteAside from being incredibly disorganized, it's annoying as fuck.
"Back to the very beginning to understand WHY Superman had the incredible impact that he did and WHY he has failed to capture today's audience as he did when he first appeared."
And the quest Singer sent him on was not to the public's liking (not to mention most of them hadn't seen STM). THAT IS WHY IT FAILED. It's not because Superman's an out of date character. The "talent" behind the film failed. The character himself will always have potential.
"SMALLVILLE is ABOUT Clark Kent's quest for his own humanity. Only AFTER he discovers that he is as human as we are, THEN he can become Superman."
Again, your ability to miss the point is utterly astounding. SV's Clark is *NOT* on a quest for his own humanity. If he's got a quest at all, it's to reconcile his human heritage with his Kryptonian heritage. Because of his own binary thinking as well as that of the Kryptonians and humans who have shaped him (or have attempted to do so), he views it as an all or nothing proposition. His quest is to make peace with Krypton. Then and only then will he be able to assume his rightful position as a hero.
That's it, that's all there is to it.
"Truth, Justice and the American Way is EXPECTED hero stuff, what made SUPERMAN unique is what he wanted most of all, was to be one of us."
He didn't want to be one of us, he *IS* one of us. We all live on the same mudball, and Superman recognizes that. What makes him tick is the fact that he uses his power to help mankind (altruism) rather than enslave it (despotism). It's a story of inspiration and optimism, the triumph of moral virtue of greedy self-interest.
You're overcomplicating something that is, by its very nature, sublimely simple. Superman is Superman not because of his powers, but how he uses them. He saves people who hates his guts as easily as those who adore him.
Moreover, you ENTIRELY MISS THE POINT of what the dual identity was intended to do. Siegel envisioned it as male wish fulfillment. Yeah, you get kicked around by the bully a little bit but he doesn't suspect your TRUE power. Taking off the glasses and removing the button-up shirt exposes The Hero. It's wish fulfillment. Nothing more, nothing less.
Taking that away from Superman is to strip away that element of his character ("the word one" you profess to cherish) and simply makes Superman the entire world's JOKE.
JFC, I can't tell if you're missing the point just to be a troll or if your understanding of so simple a concept genuinely is THAT fucked up.
It is a comic character created by teenagers. While they were bright and had suffered much in their lives, I doubt their motives and literary intentions were nearly as complex as being claimed here by some.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Colors that this is much simpler in scope and should not be an attempt at a literary classic.
What I am looking for is an action flick with Superman to take my kids to see. Certainly we would all want depth of character but to reinvent him in such a radical departure is Singerman all over again...or worse actually. I can deal with the deadbeat dad far better.
Someone already pointed out this concept is very similar to the alternate reality episode in Smallville this year when his identity was known. Clearly that was different than this in many aspects...and there is some interesting element to the concept but it fits better in a 40 minute episodic run than a 2 hour much anticipated film.
yeah....i think tmw man was a philosophy major in college that had a little too much mary jane...
ReplyDeletedude...you are reading way too much into superman. this isn't nietzsche we're talking about....its a guy in blue tights and a red cape.
enough about your "21st century superman" rants please...i'm about to hang myself because of that crap.
Summing up:
ReplyDeleteCOLORS' Superman:
1) Smallville is 'canon'
2) Clark Kent IS one of us
3) He wants to use his powers to help mankind.
4) His dual identity comes from masculine wish fulfillment.
LIB's Superman - "A guy in blue tights and a red cape."
STORM's Superman - Agrees with COLORS and "much simpler in scope and should not be an attempt at a literary classic."
Anyone care to add something?
tmw man's superman:
ReplyDelete- jim carrey in blue and red tights.
Unfortunately, as things stand now, no actor who wants a future would be willing to play Superman.
ReplyDeleteBecause, locked in the past, Superman doesn't have one either.
I'm sorry, but the "locked in the past" notion is starting to strike a nerve. The vast majority of comic fans who desire to see the characters in live action feel that way because they imagine seeing what they just read being portrayed up on the big screen.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not you mean to, you're coming across to all of us as if we should forget the 70 years of what we know and start over. There is no way in a million years that doing so would succeed. You can't reinvent the wheel. You can't reinvent electricity. You can't forget 70 years of Superman without further alienating and forever damaging the fan base. To believe there can only be a future by ignoring the past is lunacy. To create a future you must embrace the past as that is what made the character who he is.
steve put it perfectly.
ReplyDeleteWell put Steve, thank you. We don't want to reinvent Superman either. Update him, not make a fool out of him.
ReplyDeleteSUPERMAN has the greatest, deepest and most conflicting history of any fictional character ever created. There’s our SUPER-disconnect. You see Superman as a character; I see him as a STORY. His history, for his very appearance to his every recent one, is literally HIS STORY.
ReplyDeleteWe do agree that Superman is a great hero. However, am I alone believing that the hero MUST have a quest?
Anyone care to remember BATMAN & ROBIN? After that fiasco, Nolan understood that Bruce Wayne’s story was a QUEST. Yes, he respected the DC history, but instilled the passion of the quest. And when BATMAN BEGINS ended, we believed that the quest had only just BEGUN. And we were with Wayne all the way.
How did the sequel work out?
"To create a future you must embrace the past as that is what made the character who he is,"
wrote Steve.
Are we again to return to SUPERMAN RETURNS?
Things are getting a bit out of hand here.
ReplyDelete"Anyone care to add something?"
ReplyDelete"Anyone care to remember BATMAN & ROBIN?"
George Clooney's Batman saying to Robin:
"THIS is why Superman works alone!" ;)
I truly hope that none of you fail to see the irony here. This website was created in a QUEST to 'Save Superman.' That's what keeps us going.
ReplyDeleteYet you refuse to consider the idea of instilling Superman himself with a quest.
Where do you think he's going without one?
Milky,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: Of course Superman must have a quest, but what you continuously fail to realize is that the premise of Superman, in no way shape or form, has to change the way that you want to change him in order to tell that story, or to illustrate that quest.
Now to answer a question that you posed in another post of yours, you asked about Superman's dual identity; first about why Superman himself chose to create an alter-ego, and then why Superman's creators incorporated a dual identity into the character. First off: It was Clark Kent that uses Superman as a disguise, not the other way around. Clark Kent wanted to use his abilities to help people, but he realized that there would be people out there (like Lex Luthor) who would fear and hate him for his abilities, and if those people knew who his real identity then they would try and use his loved ones, or even hurt them, to get to him. He also realized that he could never have any privacy, or even a semblance of a personal life. So he created a separate identity for himself to use while helping people. Clark Kent is not a God who chose to pose as a regular person so he could walk among us, he's a normal guy who discovered that he was something far more than normal, and is dealing with that discovery the only way that he knows how, by helping people and protecting the innocent. So to sum it up: Clark Kent created an alter-ego so he could use his abilities responsibly and protect the innocent, while protecting his private life and his loved ones.
The fact that his identity is a secret does not have to be changed to take this character on a "quest", and to think that it needs to be changed is nothing more than a clear demonstration that you really know anything about Superman. And Milky, Superman IS a character, he's a real character with thoughts and feelings and emotions, and it is THAT that makes him resonate with so many people, it's that underneath all of that power, he is just a man who is doing the best he can to live his life to the fullest, and to take responsibility for the amazing abilities that he's been gifted with. The quest that Superman must go in is an emotional one, it is to examine the man who wears the cape; his journyey of discovering who he is, and what it means for him to be a hero, and his motivations behind putting on the costume, and how he deals with having so much power and still managing to stay grounded, and how he wraps his head around using his power with restraint, and how he finds the humanity within himself even though he's not technically human, and how he deals with not losing himself in the "Superman" identity. Superman's "quest" is one of personal discovery. And that quest shouldn’t be some sort of high-concept snooze fest with Clark staring sadly out at a corn field, it should be ENTERTAINING, because THAT is the true essence of what a Superman movie should be, something people can go to and not only be uplifted, but also be entertained, by watching their favorite hero defeat the bad guy and win the day. And disregarding his secret identity is so incredibly unnecessary in order to tell that story. Honestly, doing that is the sign of a lazy writer, who doesn't know how to write a character, so they just write a gimmick instead, such as the whole world secretly knowing that Clark Kent is Superman.
And now onto your next question: Why the creators of superman chose to incorporate the dual identity into the character that they created. Superman was very much a reaction to the Great Depression, a colorful one that came from the minds of teenagers, but a reaction none the less. You see, during the great depression a lot of men felt personally responsible for the plight that their families were experiencing. They saw all of the horrible things happening around them and they felt utterly powerless to do anything about it. As a result a lot of men (and women for that matter), started to look for something to be a part of, something that was bigger than themselves that they could lose themselves in so they wouldn’t have to feel so powerless anymore. Superman represented a version of this feeling; the wish that they could SECRETLY transform into something powerful, something that could affect the world and make change, and the sneak off back to work, or to the search for work, and go back to their families at night and not feel ashamed. Superman resonated very strongly with people during this time for that reason, and it’s a big reason why superheroes in general became so popular during that time period. And the Great Depression wasn’t just an American problem, it was a world-wide problem, people everywhere in every country were looking for a hero, and Superman became that hero.
You can spout all of the pseudo philosophy you want Milky, but it won’t trick anyone into thinking that you have the first clue what you’re talking about when it comes to Superman. You’ve lost this debate several times over.
There's a HUGE difference between embracing the past and photocopying what someone else already did. SR failed because Singer tried to mimic everything that Donner did in the first two films plus be a sequel to that dated franchise at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying (and most seem to be agreeing with me) that the new franchise needs to embrace the best parts of Superman's history and retell them on screen in a way that has never been done. There's only so much that can be seen in a comic. However, on film with current technology, the past can look and feel new. Aside from the fact that what 8 or 9 year old is going to have access to all 70 years of history? Not many adults have read every issue either. So what is the past to some of us, is fresh and new to others. The object is keep what is known by many interesting enough that they enjoy it and support it while giving an entirely new generation a reason to believe in Superman. To grow the fan base. Not fracture it forever.
I'm sorry, but I feel you are way overthinking things in terms of a new Superman.
Are you talking to me?...
ReplyDeleteALS:
ReplyDeleteThat was nice work and well put.
Jules Fieffer, noted comic artist and writer, and comic book historian wrote, "When Bruce Wayne wakes up, he's Bruce Wayne and must become Batman. When Superman wakes up he is Superman and has to become Clark Kent."
This 'philosophy' endured for much of Superman's history, but I think the SMALLVILLE 'mythos' has, in present company, turned things around.
And that is really the crux of our impasse. Funny, that I wanted to turn around the 'secret identity,' and lo and behold, it's already been done,
Sorry, my post was directed at MilkyWayWriter
ReplyDeleteMore on SUPERMAN from Fieffer. His book, The Great Comic Cook Superheroes' was published in 1965. He aslo created HOSTILE-MAN for Playboy in the 60s,
ReplyDeleteIn the 1930s many Jews began producing comics as a way of assimilating into American society. According to Mr. Feiffer, two Jewish men, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, created "Superman" as a way of opposing anti- Semitism in America and abroad. "Every boy wants to be invincible, to fight, kill and maim … and Superman does those things, except he is heroic," said Mr. Feiffer. Superman was a metaphor for fighting evil, such as the Nazis. "Superman really came not from Krypton, but from the planet Poland," he said.
"Kent was not Superman's true identity... Clark Kent was the fiction... the put-on... The truth may be that Kent existed not for the purposes of the story but for the reader. He is Superman's opinion of the rest of us, a pointed caricature of what we... were really like. His fake identity was our real one. That's why we loved him so."
Ah yes, I thought so, no worries! I was just confused for a moment, heh.
ReplyDeleteYou're right Milky, the "secret identity" aspect of Superman's character was indeed completely shifted when the Bryne era started in the 1980's. Before then Clark WAS just a mask for Superman. His adoptive parents died while he was young, so he never really had much of a "normal" connection with human beings. In fact, I have this big book of a bunch of old reprints of Superman comics from the fifties and sixties, and in one of them Superman considers abandoning the "Clark Kent" persona and creating a new one. But with the Bryne reboot, Clark's parents didn't die, they raised him his whole life just like any other parent would; he DID form a connection with the human race, and thus Clark Kent is no longer Superman's opinion of us, superman IS Clark Kent. He was raised as a normal kid by Martha and Johnathon Kent, and "Clark Kent" is the only identity he knew for the majority of his life. Even after he learned about his true heritage as an alien, he still considered himself an "earthling", a human, because that's how he was raised. It's just like any other adopted kid. Even though they are not biologically related to their family, they still consider the people who raised them to be their TRUe mother and father, just as Clark Kent, even after he learns about his heritage, and even after he puts on the suit, he still considers himself to be Clark Kent.
ReplyDeleteThank you, ALS your knowledge is as deep as your honesty.
ReplyDeleteBetween your Superman and my 'Brave New Superman' is opposing STORIES.
Yours: Clark Kent becomes Superman.
Mine: Superman becomes Clark Kent.
The key word is BECOMES. Either Clark Kent or Superman must not just be, but BECOMING.
I say, how about just giving me that blue & white 'electrical' Superman that someone brought up a few posts back. After all, that truly IS 'new' Superman. And boy, can he throw a super-powered 'haymaker' ACROSS Metropolis with his Green Lantern fist. But he's blue. But..........heh heh. ;)
ReplyDeleteMilky: Here's the thing, for me "Superman becomes Clark Kent" just isn't as interesting of a character. The reason I like Superman so much is because despite all of his power, he's a real person, he's just a normal guy who is dealing with these extraordinary powers, and rising above the temptations to use those powers for personal gain, and using them to protect humanity...He has heart. The other way, he's this cold Alien, who has no life beyond his abilities, who has no real personality, and no real connections to humanity...That's just not who Superman is anymore. That'd be an interesting story for a different character, like Mr. Majestic for example, gradually becoming human, learning HOW to connect with the human race instead of looking DOWN on them....like I said, interesting but it's not Superman. When Superman becomes a REAL PERSON, Clark Kent, his moral struggles, and his reasons for choosing to be a hero, and to sacrifice a portion of his life to protect people, and truly embracing his place as humanity’s protector; it all just has so much more emotional weight to it because it's REAL. To make a movie about the old Golden Age Superman, to me, wouldn't really be a Superman movie at all. And then to completely erase the “secret” identity on top of that…it would transform him into a completely different character.
ReplyDeleteNon-amos: Electric Superman.....ugh....haha
Oops, I got cut off: I remember back in 1997, when I bought the first issue of JLA (I think Grant Morrison was writing it back then) featuring Electric Superman....I was utterly speechless....it's a pretty good representation of how ridiculous the 90's was for comic books...so many gimmicks. Though if Warners wanted to put the final nail in the hate coffin that they built up with Superman Returns, then Superman 2: Electric Blue Boogaloo would be the way to go hahaha.
ReplyDeleteoops, grammatical error: "How ridiculous the 90's WERE" heh. Sorry, I'm a teacher, it's a force of habit, apparently even when it comes to myself heh.
ReplyDeleteALS, what's wrong with the Golden Age Superman, AKA Earth-2 Superman? Even for a screen adaptation?
ReplyDeleteI know I stated this more than once back on the website, but I think in some ways Supes needs to be patterned after this version, at least in some attributes. Namely, TOUGHNESS! This was really a tough guy version of the character. No getting cats out of trees here! Incidentally, I also believe George Reeves' version on TV was somewhat patterned after this 'tough guy' approach, & if you'll notice, his Clark was tough also. No 'swell' there!
Now, I'm NOT suggesting a period piece. I'd like the reboot to be modern, but IF you're gonna draw on 70 years of history, why not go back to the blueprint, which was the version that took comics by storm back in THAT day?
Basically, a modern version, with tough attributes but without being an abuser of his power. So essentially no 'wussy' stuff, & that means no stumbling, bumbling Clark either. And I'm also not saying dark like Batman, but still have an 'edge', an intensity to him, that will get THIS generation interested as well.
"Things are getting a bit out of hand here."
ReplyDelete- webhead
It's interesting to me how you have absolutely nothing to say and yet you feel compelled to keep saying it.
"You're right Milky, the "secret identity" aspect of Superman's character was indeed completely shifted when the Bryne era started in the 1980's. Before then Clark WAS just a mask for Superman. His adoptive parents died while he was young, so he never really had much of a "normal" connection with human beings."
- ALS
Not so. I've been reading the Bronze Age like mad lately and it's pretty clear that Clark exists as a distinct psychological entity... one that's subservient to Superman's agenda, to be sure, but he's hardly just a mask. That does hold true for the Silver Age though, where Clark was really nothing more than a disguise Superman put on.
"Mine: Superman becomes Clark Kent."
- milkywhite
In your story, there *IS* no Clark Kent, there's just Superman in a pair of glasses... and that's no secret to the people around him.
I agree with you non-amos. Superman needs to be a tough guy, not just a superhero. The way he was portrayed in The Animated Series was great. And in JLU when he "unleashed" on Darkseid was awesome. That is how he should be on screen. Sure, he doesn't kill, but when a beating is in order he'll dish it out.
ReplyDeleteWrote ALS: "Superman becomes Clark Kent" just isn't as interesting of a character.
ReplyDeleteA defining statement - in YOUR story, Kal-el comes from Krypton, is raised by the Kents, and after many trails and tribulations, becomes Superman. As a reporter for the Daily Planet, he falls in loves with Lois Lane, and in a number of different versions, wins her and they marry.
I's not that I feel this is, in any way, 'less interesting.' But as a STORY, it's over. While many formidible foes may threaten humanity in the future, the SUPERMAN STORY has come to an end. And everybody knows it.
Clark Kent in Superman.
Superman becomes Clark Kent is NOT in any way 'better' - NOT about 'right' or 'wrong,' but it does make you look at SUPERMAN in a different way. It tells a story you do NOT know.
Maybe 4 of you actually read my script. I don't believe anyone complained about my Superman, his toughness or lack of action.
BUT...Clark Kent was seen as an 'alien wearing eyeglasses' or a 'clod' by those who never read it.
Webhead wrote that I introduced a Clark Kent everyone knew to be Superman and then did not develop it. Exactly. It's not what the writer implies, but what the reader INFERS.
Whoa! You were outraged. Not because I 'changed' or 'reinvented' SUPERMAN, but YOUR Clark Kent who suddenly becomes the minor rather than the major thrust of the character.
Superman becomes Clark Kent now gives Superman someplace different to go.
Clark Kent IS Superman is YOUR story at its end.
Superman is Clark Kent is my story at the BEGINNING.
I started to read your story, but gave up after the initial slap in the face. Do you honestly believe that Superman not knowing that the whole world knows he is Clark Kent/Superman doesn't make him look like a major idiot?
ReplyDeleteEven in the early comics Clark Kent was raised by EARTHLINGS/HUMANS. He would have picked up a lot of human ideology and values. To say that Superman is who he really is...negates that whole upbringing. Are we not a product of how we were raised? Take away his humanity what do you have left? An alien with superpowers protecting Earth for some unknown reason.
Count me out of your story. I ain't buying it.
Oh by the way it could have loads of action, but if we don't care about the character then who cares?
ReplyDeleteYou 'don't care; because your Superman is about Clark Kent becoming Superman.
ReplyDeleteThe very idea of Superman becoming Clark Kent, well, we can't read any of THAT, now can we?
Colors:When I said Superman was just a mask, I was really just referring to the silver age, you are completely correct in saying that Clark is distinct, but is still subservient to Superman, but the fact still remains is that Superman was the "real" identity, Clark was just a personality he put on to disguise himself, a highly complex one that eventually became a seperate and complete identity to be sure, but I was really just referring to the shift that occurred: It was at first Superman who was the dominant personality, Now it is Clark. Clark is just the same as Superman as he was growing up on the farm. Sure, the Clark Kent in the daily planet keeps to himself, but he's not some bumbling moron as he was in the Donner movies (although some recent Superman comics written by Geoff Johns seem to portray Clark as bumbling, which I thought was a bit..well, stupid).
ReplyDeleteNon-Amos: There's nothing wrong with Golden Age superman, he's just FAR to one-dimensional to be relevant and interesting to star in his own movie. That's not me saying that Golden Age Superman stories are all awful, they are great stories. And Superman definitely needs to be tough. Though I agree with Steve in saying that it should be the DCU Animated version of a "tough Superman" not just some one dimensional tough-guy who goes around beating thugs with a lamp-post. So yeah, I agree with you completely, without toughness, Superman just seems incomplete.
Milky: Are you even reading my posts? Superman becoming Clark Kent isn't new at all, the only place that it gives Superman to go is the same place he went in the 40's and 50's. If you like that version better than that's perfectly fine, but please stop trying to say that it's some new revolutionary take on Superman that YOU came up with. It's not. I really can't think of anything more to say to you Milky, you just keep insisting that "your" take on Superman is new and interesting and revolutionary and brings "new truths" to the character, when really, it's just your idea of what you would do with a Superman movie, and it's honestly not that great of an idea. Just take a minute and listen to Colors, Non-Amos, Sharon and Steve instead of trying so hard to be "insightful".
Didn't the Apologist Puncher say that Milkywhite's defenses would be running on overdrive once the critiques started coming in? I don't think even he could've predicted all this.
ReplyDeleteNot being defensive at all.
ReplyDeleteThe Clark Kent becomes Superman story has been told and retold. Clark marrying Lois ENDED the story all the world knows.
Clark Kent fans love his story and want it to go on and on.
I believe we need a new way at looking at Superman as an the alien immigrant who becomes Clark Kent.
As far as critiques go, PLEASE keep them coming, provided you actually read the story.
On SUPERMAN criticism:
ReplyDeleteWhile there may be someone on this site who HATED Superman Returns more than I did, I doubt it, yet on Rotten Tomatoes, the Internet barometer on how a movie is received, SR garnered a 77% approval rating, 189 for, 57 against.
My point: the rest of the world sees Superman far differently than we do.
Rotten Tomatoes isn't the be all end all of determining a movie's greatness. Critics lose jobs and access to premieres when they bad mouth the wrong film. I rarely trust a paid critic.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for our debate here, on the front page of the site I just posted a poll. I realize not everyone from SaveSuperman.com has joined in yet so the number of votes will be low, however it should serve it's purpose.
I personally prefer Clark as the real person and Superman as the disguise. It makes him more relatable and it hasn't been done on the big screen.
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of material from the comics to glean a story that the general public hasn't seen. There is no need to change the basics of the character. People should come out of the movie theater saying "What a kick ass Superman movie!" not "What the hell did I just watch?"
ALS spake-
ReplyDelete"but I was really just referring to the shift that occurred: It was at first Superman who was the dominant personality, Now it is Clark."
True. Yeah, that's correct. Sorry to split hairs with you on that one. But in my defense, some fans seem to think that the comics went from some really goofy ass imaginary stories straight into Byrne's reboot. It's like the Bronze Age (with a noticeably more assertive Clark, the rise of Lois as a feminist icon, etc) never took place.
It's a pet peeve of mine, just ignore me.
"although some recent Superman comics written by Geoff Johns seem to portray Clark as bumbling, which I thought was a bit..well, stupid"
You know, so many fans are all over that guy's cock and while I acknowledge that he is good, he's not the second coming he's made out to be.
On the other hand, we've had a lot of craptastic comics writers like Seagle, Azzarello, Jeph Loeb (that's right, I said it) and others lo these past several years so maybe Johns stands out just by virtue of not outright sucking.
Jen scribbled-
"I personally prefer Clark as the real person and Superman as the disguise"
I can see both angles, myself. As long as it's well-written, I can accept either.
No, I actually agree with you about the Bronze age, I just wanted to make my point clearer. The Bronze age had some really good stuff in it, and Superman took leaps and bounds character-development wise. And I agree with you about Geoff Johns too, he's good, and I've enjoyed a great number of his stories, but he definitely isn't the be-all-end-all of comic book writers, there are far better writers out there than him. And whenever I try and bring that point up on a message board I usually get labeled a "Troll". And yeah, Jeph Loeb sucks. Which is quite sad because there was a time when he was good. Same with Chris Claremont.
ReplyDeleteI found Jen’s entry telling, especially her preference for Clark Kent. (“Superman is what I do. Clark Kent is who I am.”)
ReplyDeleteWhat she and others refuse to contemplate or accept: a new CLARK KENT.
Many of these writers are what I like to call "One and Done". They make one absolutely amazing story and the rest pale in comparison. Away from comics for just a second, take the Wachowskis for example. The Matrix trilogy went down hill with each installment and what have they done since? Speed Racer anyone?
ReplyDeleteBut back on the comic scene in terms of Superman, you can take Kingdom Come the same way. Awesome. One of the best I've ever read. Would like to see his idea for a reboot that has ends with Superman being the sole survivor of Earth, left all alone? Nope. Not really.
All Star Superman is another that has it's great points, but something about the later issues just didn't sit well with me. Hard to explain though. I like Grant Morrison, but again, there are better writers out there. You could make an argument for John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, Elliot S. Maggin, and others. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again...take what these guys all did best and make one truly amazing and epic trilogy on screen.
Actually, Kingdom Come was written by Mark Waid, not Mark MIller, though you are right about Miller, he definitely did some amazing things with "The Ultimates" but I'm honestly not that big of a fan of some of his Other Stuff. Civil War was pretty good I suppose, but Honestly, Wanted was interesting, but highly highly overrated. I sincerely hope that they don't let him anywhere NEAR the Superman Franchise. But yeah, I definitely agree, taking all of the best elements from all of the best Superman stories is definitely the best recipe for an awesome Superman trilogy
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Had my "Marks" mixed up. Waid actually wants to see Birthright on film.
ReplyDelete"What she and others refuse to contemplate or accept: a new CLARK KENT"
ReplyDelete- milkywhite
I can't speak for Jen but I'll stick with the established mythos, thanks. You can take your "innovations" and stick 'em in your ear.
"All Star Superman is another that has it's great points, but something about the later issues just didn't sit well with me. Hard to explain though."
- Steve
I dug it. Some people are really into that "post-human Superman" angle and Morrison does it well. AS Superman was good times.
"You could make an argument for John Byrne, Dan Jurgens, Elliot S. Maggin, and others."
- Steve again
#1 in my book is sort of a toss up between Maggin and Cary Bates. Picking favorites between those two is like trying to figure out the most awesome member of Led Zeppelin; it's hard to pick one over another.
As for Jurgens, I dug his work and he definitely understood the nuts and bolts of what made Byrne's reboot tick but he always seemed sort of like a work horse. Good with characters but nothing special in terms of plot. Then again, he was working under the "four books doubling as one" era with ultra-tight continuity and not much room for individual expression. So hmm.
However, I've said it before and I'll say it again...take what these guys all did best and make one truly amazing and epic trilogy on screen"
"I sincerely hope that they don't let him anywhere NEAR the Superman Franchise"
- ALS
Millar wrote one of the greatest Superman stories of all time with Red Son. As to the more controversial aspects of his pitch, I don't see why people ever worried about that. Something tells me any future Superman film is going to have a LOT of studio notes... a REAL love story between Superman and Lois being one of 'em.
"You're right. Had my "Marks" mixed up. Waid actually wants to see Birthright on film."
- Steve once more
Rao help us all.
Millar's 'trilogy' ending with SUPERMAN alone on earth was a nod to Wells' 'Time Traveler' at the end of TIME MACHINE.
ReplyDeleteA complete downer, the last thing Superman should symbolize.
Wrote ALS - "But yeah, I definitely agree, taking all of the best elements from all of the best Superman stories is definitely the best recipe for an awesome Superman trilogy."
ReplyDeleteSeems logical, but you're condoning the 'cut-and-paste' screenwriting school which will gut, then rust The Man of Steel.
Think of Superman, not as a character, but a STORY. Not a new Superman, but a new Superman STORY.
Colors: Red Son is indeed amazing, it's one of my favorite Superman stories of all time, as I said I've liked some of the stuff he did a whole lot but as the writer of a trilogy of Superman movies...For a reason I can't quite put into words, it just makes me a bit uneasy. But hey, if he gets the job then I'll be happy to give him the chance to prove me wrong.
ReplyDeleteAnd I hadn't heard that Waid wanted to see birthright on film. I like Superman Birthright, a great deal, and while I don't really think another movie dealing with an Origin Story would be necessary, I definitely would be okay if some aspects of Birthright, I quite liked how Krypton was portrayed, should be included into a new Superman film.
Oops, that last part of the post got cut off: Though there were several aspects of birthright I absolutely hated, such as Superman being able to "see" people's soul's, or whatever, and that he's a vegetarian, the whole thing about Martha becoming a UFO Nut, and That whole scene with Johnathon Kent freaking out and trying to wreck the ship....And I understand what he was trying to do with the "Superman" symbol, but I think that he took it WAY to far. Honestly, now that I think about it, really the only things that I liked about it was the portrayal of Krypton, and the ending was interesting.
ReplyDeleteSuperman. The Man of Tomorrow. The Last Son of Krypton. The Man of Steel.
ReplyDeleteHe who changes the course of mighty rivers with his bare hands. Who can stand before him?
And now he is NEW Superman, of the 21st Century! He IS Clark. Clark is HE.
I forget the rest. I'll have to do like MilkyCreamy & just make it up as I go along. ;)
Wow I finally made it through MWW story. I was not impressed. Even the action was boring. OMG give me a break, and if you wanna try to get us into a story at least make it interesting.
ReplyDeleteBrainaic shrinks Kandor...ok given I used that myself before, but yours was utterly boring and I felt absolutely no connection to any character at all. I was not drawn into their plight. Your list of how to write a story...didn't you even read what you wrote?
Basic idea....give the main character a problem to solve, make it more difficult then finally resolve the issue. What did you do in your story? Problem...Clark/Superman...excuse me Superman/Clark is an idiot...totally oblivious to the fact that everyone around him knows who he really is. He has some lame ass fight with Lex with some craptastic robot...whew I was on the edge of my seat there. (not really actually I yawned a lot) Oh yeah don't forget the flashback to the teenage parents of Kal-El, rush rush send son to Earth. No feelings generated there either. I didn't feel sorry that Krypton blew up, I didn't feel scared or worried when Kandor was shrunken and taken as a prize by Brainiac. What was your motivation to rehash that part, but not Kal-El being raised as a human by his adoptive parents? Did you just have Superman arrive on Earth fully grown and just decide to become her protector? Where is the character development? When did he get here, how, you covered the why part...his parents so loved him that they sent him to Earth. Who is Superman/Clark...all I got is he is an idiot, his every move has no planning, he just reacts to situations.
I don't even want to go on. Just be happy that I didn't have a paper copy of your story to burn. It really needs major work. I am being brutally honest with you. If you can't handle it, then don't ask ppl here to give you their opinions. Quit trying to shove it down our throats as gospel. I would rather watch Singerman again than see your idea on screen. If you need some idea on how to write a good story, go to Kyptonsite and read some of the fan-fics there. Some are exceptional...unlike yours.
I am done responding to your posts. I have done as you requested, I read your story, and gave you my honest opinion of it.
I read up until the part where Lex uses "gas" to escape from the crowd of "Metropolitans" surrounding his "vehicle". Lex should have had a cheesy moustache, that he can TWIRL and go "Nyah-ha-ha" when the time is just right!
ReplyDeleteAs to the rest of the gobbledy-gook spouted in the replies, all I can say is:
"O' Lord, Some Of These Days"....
Ya know what, MilkyCreamy, why not explain WHY Kal-El had teenage parents. Let me guess. They must've forgot to wear protection, right? Then Jor-El had the Kryptonian equivalent of a 'shotgun' wedding?! ;)
ReplyDeleteKal-el had teenage parents to give SUPERMAN, your 'brand name' hero, a YOUTHFUL origin. You want the grandfatherly Brando?
ReplyDeleteAs far as Red Son goes, it's as dated as WATCHMEN.
What NONE of you has even hinted at is the very core of the character's success: the Superman/Clark Kent/Lois Lane triangle.
ReplyDeleteWant the Donner version continued by Singer? Didn't think so?
Lois and Clark? The DCU marriage?
How about the SV take? I rememer the scene when Lois (The Army brat) is leading the powerless Clark 'Smallville' Kent in the supervillain's lair, and Lois is wielding a gun.
So much for the "damsel in distress' created by S&S and later in the first cartoons.
Unless the fabled threesome gets a new spin, it's Superman as usual.
I want the Singerman continued more than the crap you are trying to sell us. What a load. Give it up MWW. Try again.
ReplyDeleteWe like Superman as usual we don't want him changed into something he is not. As some ppl say a big dumb alien. Get a grip. We all said how we want our Lois to be, how a our Clark isn't to be some bumbling idiot, and our Superman kick ass. So where didn't we say how we wanted our Clark/Lois/Supermam triangle.
Lois doesn't need to be saved all the time. OMG this isn't the days before women's lib. Lois can be strong, smart, and driven to succeed. Her passion gets her into trouble sometimes especially when you are in a world where there are supervillians.
What pray tell is wrong with the way that Smallville is portraying Lois? Everyone needs help sometimes. That episode you refer to is when Clark was powerless, having been depowered by Lex. Do you even watch the series or do you just go to Supermanhomepage and read Neal Bailey's review? A lot of ppl complain about the series not sticking to the mythos enough. You want to change it all. What makes you think it will be well recieved?
Lois and Clark the New Adventures of Superman was at its time a good show. Not in the same league as Smallville, but good fun. The interaction between Clark and Lois was fun, not campy and stupid Biff pow of Batman and Robin.
Ugh you make me so tired with your sermons. I feel like I have to respond to your drivel. Hopefully you will get the hint eventually, and give up the attempt at brainwashing us into believing that your story is good.
Oh by the way I DO NOT WANT SINGERMAN CONTINUED. I just would rather see more of that than your idea come to the screen. I just wanted to make sure you realize that I am in no way shape or form and apologist.
ReplyDeleteI believe Sharon spreaks for just about everyone in wanting a Superman and a Clark Kent she already knows and feels 'a connection' with.
ReplyDeleteFine. That's human nature.
I remember the chills I got the last time that big S flashed on the screen backed by Williams' theme. Then came the Brando voice-over.
Oh, wow! Was I psyched up!
And then...
The only 'message' anybody got out of Singer's 'serious' sequel...
"Why the world doesn't need SUPERMAN."
Bring back the OLD, familiar Superman and Clark Kent you know so well?
Sorry, but when Warner would rather invest in Green Lantern, haven't any of you gotten that 'message'?
We are all sorry that you won't get the message. Your treatment of the character is shamefull. Give it a rest. Try incorporating the old and new. You don't have to change superman so drastically in order to give it a new feel. Good grief man.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you believe that your ideas are any better than the rest of ours? Because you say so. Sorry but your gonna have to try better. Your don't tell the ppl a story they already know crap doesn't cut it. Ppl feel more comfortable with a story that is familiar, but more up to date, and action filled.
Do you say that the Smallville Clark is old and familiar. I beg to differ. Some purists don't like Smallville for their take on the Superman mythos saying they changed this or that. At least they stick with the tried and true, which has made it popular for 8 years. Singerman sucked because they made Superman something he isn't...stupid, boring, lame, etc.
Perhaps WB will get the message before you do. Put in some of the more tried and true aspects, some fun, and perhaps YOU might have a story that is at least stomachable.
Oh yeah even if I had never heard of the character of Superman, I wouldn't like your story. I like a strong, smart lead character not some idiot that everyone laughs at behind his back.
ReplyDeleteMy 'message' is obvious: We MUST give the world a new way of seeing SUPERMAN.
ReplyDeleteAnd if mine sucked, so be it.
But if your MINDSET remains stuck on 'the tried and true,' truth be told, it's already been tried.
Not about 'stepping up,' but stepping OUT. Give me a Superman, a TRUE Superman in a way I haven't seen him before.
Start there.
Here is an idea for you since you want a new character so badly. Write a new superhero. Give him different powers, weaknesses, trials and tribulations.
ReplyDeleteWe stepped away from the tried and true in SR and what did we get? CRAP! You stepped away from tried and true...what did you give us...more CRAP! Like I said before update Superman, don't make him a dark character, don't make him an idiot, do not make him and angry God. Make the character someone we can relate to.
Without a relationship or a connection with the character it is less likely that ppl will care what the heck you do with him.
Superman is not God...all powerful, and without baggage. Superman chose to live among us, and he is like us in many ways. He isn't Superman 24/7. What a sucky way to live. That is why he has the two separate personas. So he can have a life, and not have to save ppl, and solve all the Earths problems all the time. Would you want to do that? Or do you think he should sit atop Mt. Olympus on high, on call in case someone should need him?
Yes tried and true has been "tried" it has also worked for 70 years. Your untried hasn't even lasted 2 weeks here. I am not the only one hating your treatment. I can honestly say that I read it though.
Not arguing with your assessment, Sharon.
ReplyDeleteAs this site is about a Superman 'reboot'...
Remember JJ Abbrams 'reboot' with Superman in a battlesuit (To sell a lot of toys!} vs. Lex Luthor from Krypton?
But Abbrams STAR TREK 'reboot' is drawing raves.
After a succession of TV shows, cartoons and ten hit-or-miss movies, TREK had been given up for dead.
Sure, the 'reboot' would have plenty of action and FX, but Abbrams' mindset was NEW and YOUNG.
"To boldly go where no one had ever dreamt STAR TREK had come from."
Not an assault on the sacred 'mythos,' but a new way of seeing a young Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
Give me a YOUNG, NEW way of seeing Superman, Clark Kent and Lois Lane.
Rather than condemn my effort, bounce off it with new, young ideas of your own.
This is like beating a dead horse... This guy is so arrogant, he thinks he is going to get a Pulitzer.
ReplyDeleteI read TMW Man crap fest. I am not impress. He might as well be Singer. This identity thing. Clark Kent was created for us. Seigel and Shuster wanted a character that we can identify so they created Clark Kent. Clark Kent is a symbol of what men are and Superman is a symbol of who we want to be. Superman's secret identity is essential to the Superman story
Teenage Parents?
Why promote teenage pregnancy? I agree Jor-El does not have to be Brando age but he does not have to be a teenager. Remember even though Krypton is more technological advanced, it doesn't mean as story tellers we forget morality. We should not promote teen pregnancy.
This is my only comment on this crap fest and this subject. Lets not feed TMW Man's ego by addressing this.
James Bond got a successful reboot. Instead of more gadgets and pithy lines, they went lean, mean and serious. In short a NEW WAY of looking at 007.
ReplyDeleteNone of you have offered ANY ideas for a new, young way of looking at SUPERMAN.
And for that you blame me?
"James Bond got a successful reboot. Instead of more gadgets and pithy lines, they went lean, mean and serious. In short a NEW WAY of looking at 007."
ReplyDeleteThough Singer tried to change Superman by giving him a bastard son and angst.
Also you cant compare Superman and James Bond.
They rebooted James Bond to be more realistic. Like Nolan did with Batman. This worked because Those characters are human. Superman comes from another world. So changing him would not necessarily work.
You can update Superman without changing the core themes of his story. Byrne did it in 1986.
I did NOT say 'change' Superman. Give us a YOUNG, NEW way of seeing him.
ReplyDeleteYes, KEEP the core themes, but present them in a fresh new way.
Not saying I have ANY of the answers, but dumping on my attempt rather than trying to come up with ideas for a reboot is hardly the way to get one done.
Superman CAN be compared to James Bond in that they are 'classic' 20th century characters that have been done and redone over and over.
ReplyDeleteAfter 22 films, 007 is going full bore while the Man of Steel has been seemingly abandoned.
Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Scrooge and Tarzen are all in the reboot process because each will get brave new treatment.
Any suggestions for Superman?
I fully repect this forum heartful adherence to the SUPERMAN 'mythos,' but not one of you has offered even a simple twist that might open The Man of Steel to new possibilities.
ReplyDeleteOr as Lex once put it: "Even with all this accumulated knowledge, when will these dummies learn to use a doorknob?"
OK, MilkyCreamy, you want a NEW way of looking at Superman? OK, I'll GIVE you one, but it MAY NOT be the one you were hoping for!
ReplyDeleteLet's just introduce him as Superman-Prime, AKA Superboy-Prime, from a parallel Earth. Or at least the EQUIVALENT of him.
Let's see. This character has the mind of a teenager throwing temper tantrums, only in HIS case, he has 'SILVER AGE SUPERMAN' strength AND abilities, which means his power is almost without limit. So when he throws one of his little 'fits', he can just lay waste to the entire planet! As a matter of fact, by his 'drilling' through the entire planet at mind-numbing speed, he'll literally cause it to explode!
And forget Kryptonite, unless you can find some that came from Krypton-Prime. Obviously forget magic as well (refer to Infinite Crisis).
So there ya go, MilkyCreamy, a nearly all-powerful take on Superman, but a character bloodthirsty for revenge, who'll literally knock your head off as soon as look at you.
Maybe THAT is different enough for you, while still maintaining at least SOME elements of the character?! ;)
I'm confused now Milky...
ReplyDeleteYou say people are dumping on your idea but nobody is offering any way of rebooting. I must be in the wrong place because I've seen at least 5 ideas besides yours.
While I respect your attempt, again, I believe you are completely overthinking things and because of that, you'll never be able to see that each idea from those who stepped forward with one, is different than Donner and Singer. They relate to the comics. To the source material. A place which has yet to truly be explored on screen. THAT IS a NEW start for Superman.
Giving him teen parents is just as bad as Singer giving him a bastard son and making a hero into a creepy stalker who doesn't need binoculars. You'd be promoting teen sex and pregnancy. Imagine the backlash for a second. I'm in no way saying his parents should be in their mid 50's as Brando was, but early 30's makes perfect sense.
I probably shouldn't say this, but to add to the conflict between Superman and Lex in my idea, Lex and Lois have known each other since childhood due to Lionel's dealings with the US Military. Lex continues that relationship trying to impress her every step of the way. When she falls for Superman, it adds fuel to Lex's desire to kill him.
"They relate to the comics. To the source material. A place which has yet to truly be explored on screen."
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, on the special features on the S:TM DVD, the whole 'crystal Krypton' idea was an idea from someone involved in the creative process of that film. I believe it was an attempt to make an 'alien' world UNLIKE the way the comics portrayed it. I believe they didn't like that whole 'Buck Rogers' look or something. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's about what happened.
And I'd bet it was a 'non-fan' who came up with that idea, which sticks with us until this day. Yeah, Steve, you're right! They NEED to go back to the source material. That alone will no doubt give us a different take ANYWAY!
let me beat milky to the punch steve...
ReplyDeletehe will post either:
But the world MUST be given a fresh perspective on the human experience that is SUPERMAN.
or
We must either compel the world to see Superman from a fresh perspective or his 'mythos' will be remembered only by his flagging fanbase and 20th Century historians.
or
Give me a YOUNG, NEW way of seeing Superman
shut your piehole milky. it sounds like you want to cram the superman red/superman blue storyline down our throats.
New and Young Superman.....
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what has been on Smallville for 8 years now???
You may argue he isn't Superman yet but with that going on for 8 years how is a fresh young Superman going to be so shocking?
Would you say Nolan's Batman was fresh and young? I would disagree, it was actually a look back in concept to the older mythos. You could argue Ledger's Joker was a newer concept but even still it wasn't a complete departure.
Kal-el's teen parents are from another world, an alien civilization out in the cosmos.
ReplyDeleteYou thought they were from Cleveland maybe?
As for other versions/twists, I've read paragraphs, not pages. Ideas rather than stories.
Where is THE WORK?
The very genesis of the Siegel and Shuster,mythos is the Clark Kent/Superman/Lois Lane triangle.
ReplyDeleteClark loves Lois who thinks he’s ‘a spineless worm. She’s in love with Superman.
You don’t mess with that. Inserting Luthor as another rival? If it ain’t broke, don’t add a supervillain!
Sure, I twisted the mythos, but Clark will fall in love with Lois who knows all along that he is Superman. Like it or not, that makes for new possibilities.
Hey MilkyCreamy, what happened to Prime?!
ReplyDeleteHey you OTHER guys, methinks there is absolutely NO REASONING with this guy! He asks where's the work? He sees paragraphs, not pages?!
If ANY of us even took the effort to turn in 14 pages like he did, he'd still shoot all of our ideas down & continue to spout his psycho babble!
Can you see where this is going?
"Predictions are hard, Amos, especially about the future."
ReplyDeleteStressing the SUPERMAN as conceived by Siegel and Shuster is hardly 'shooting down an idea.'
So what makes you think I'd shoot down yours which you haven't done any work on?
OMG....
ReplyDeleteAgain, each other idea presented IS the embodiment of what Siegel and Shuster created. You claim the "genesis" of their idea is a Clark/Superman/Lois love triangle. No, it is not. They didn't create a love story. They had no intention of doing so. Jerry Siegel's father died of a heart attack during the robbery of his store. They created a superhero that could not be hurt. Someone who's life would center around stopping crime and helping humanity. I don't believe you actually know what they intended or how they intended the character to be. I think you have this dream in your head of what he should be and are trying desperately to convince us you've grasped the inner workings of Superman and know what has to be done, but not how to do it. Just an observation based on your posts.
As for giving Lex another reason to hate Superman, why is that a problem?? You wanted a new edge to the story. I gave you one. As you said, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Well Superman isn't broke, but you seem very intent on convincing us he is and has no future. Your bleak view of no future if the past is embraced is pure madness. We're all talking about putting the greatest stories of Superman on screen, while you seem to be hell bent on recreating things for a future only you can see. I'm not trying to be rude, but that is how you're coming across to many of us.
"I probably shouldn't say this, but to add to the conflict between Superman and Lex in my idea, Lex and Lois have known each other since childhood due to Lionel's dealings with the US Military. Lex continues that relationship trying to impress her every step of the way. When she falls for Superman, it adds fuel to Lex's desire to kill him."
ReplyDelete- Steve
They played that angle in the mid 90's (in the comics and L&C). I thought it worked great. If Lois has a spirit and personality that Superman could love, it stands to reason that Lex would feel something for her too. I think it plays.
"If I'm not mistaken, on the special features on the S:TM DVD, the whole 'crystal Krypton' idea was an idea from someone involved in the creative process of that film. I believe it was an attempt to make an 'alien' world UNLIKE the way the comics portrayed it. I believe they didn't like that whole 'Buck Rogers' look or something. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's about what happened.
And I'd bet it was a 'non-fan' who came up with that idea, which sticks with us until this day. Yeah, Steve, you're right! They NEED to go back to the source material. That alone will no doubt give us a different take ANYWAY!"
- non-amos (if indeed that is his real name)
That's basically it. In some ways, I can't fault them for that since recreating Krypton and the FOS as they were in the comics would've been a tremendous pain in the neck... and, if not done properly,possibly a little goofy. But the crystal bullshit has stayed with the character like a fart in a car for 30 years, and now it's even been incorporated into the comics. I dunno who's brilliant fucking idea that was, but whoever thought of it should be dragged out to the street and shot as a warning to others. The crystal thing (arguably) works in live action but it looks like crap when it's drawn.
"Stressing the SUPERMAN as conceived by Siegel and Shuster is hardly 'shooting down an idea.'"
- Milkywhite
Don't bring that here. You've spent the majority of this thread wiping your ass with what they originally intended (which is wish fulfillment vis a vis secret identities). Your conceptualization is not a celebration of how the envisioned the character, it's a repudiation of it.
You gentlemen repeatedly refer to Superman as a comic book character or continuing TV show or good and bad superhero movies as if he were a 'classic' senior member of the fanboy universe.
ReplyDeleteSuperman BEGAN the fanboy universe.
Without the DCU, Hollywood, or TV land, Superman stunned the real world.
That's the IMPACT of Superman.
You'd aim for far less.
And after reading my story, how the hell can you say I did NOT establish a possible future relationship between Clark and Lois?
Or did you want it spelled out in CAPS on a billboard?
As for his teen parents and their lack of resposibility...Jor-el has always been portrayed as a 'responsible' scientist who did extensive research to prove his theory.
"Lara, I believe Kryton will soon explode. Let's make a baby."
"- non-amos (if indeed that is his real name)"
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Colors, my name is as real as YOURS? ;)
Speaking of which, you said the same thing a while back on the website, & I basically answered the same way. So are you INSINUATING something? Surely you wouldn't think I'm someone else you may have conversed with in, say, the past 2 years or so, maybe at another locale? Maybe another ID, el_trento?
Nah, couldn't be what you're getting at, right? ;)
Heh heh!
Why are we still humoring this guy? It's obvious, with each post that completely contradicts what he THINKS he knows about Superman from REAL enthusiasts, that he doesn't know JACK SHIT about Superman.
ReplyDeleteAnd, people have offered paragraphs instead of stories because unlike you, they have a life. They don't feel the need to write a fucking treatment. I get the feeling that you've spouted this shit to DC and got turned down and now you will stop at nothing to get SOMEONE to agree with you.
Wherever you are in the world, whatever your age, your nationality, your gender or your religion, if you can read the words off a screen, you KNOW who Superman is. AND you know his STORY.
ReplyDeleteGod only knows where BATMAN is headed, SPIDER-MAN's still got maturity issues to work out while Harry Potter has a couple more films to make. STAR TREK and JAMES BOND have been rebooted for the beginning and IRON MAN has just taken off.
But Superman's STORY you know. You've got the mythos down pat. Clark Kent becomes Superman, and after a long, long pursuit, he wins Lois Lane, the woman of his dreams, and they get married.
Committed to helping humanity, Clark, as Superman, has saved millions of lives and in future adventures will probably save millions more.
But as a STORY - Clark Kent IS Superman. The story of YOUR Superman has come to an end.
To reboot, you're telling me Byrne or Millar or some other DC or WB employee? C'mon, go back to Siegel and Shuster and give their
STORY a twist.
Superman becomes Clark Kent and we know it.
Good, bad or worse, it gives SUPERMAN a new STORY, one that you don't know. You'll have to look at Superman in a brand new way.
And that's killing you.
"Wherever you are in the world, whatever your age, your nationality, your gender or your religion, if you can read the words off a screen, you KNOW who Superman is. AND you know his STORY."
ReplyDelete- troll
No, you don't. May know a character like Superman exists, you may recognize the S-emblem and you may even know who his secret identity is. But that's about it. Like it or not, Superman (his status as an icon notwithstanding) isn't universally UNDERSTOOD. Recognized? Yes. But not everyone can tell you even his planet of origin. You may think they can, THEY CANNOT. Origin stories deal with this. Refreshing the classic mythos to deal with our modern world deals with this.
COMPLETELY REINVENTING THE CHARACTER SIMPLY DESTROYS WHO HE'S ALWAYS BEEN AND DOES **NOTHING** TO FURTHER THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF HIM.
Period, end of story.
If I were the ONLY one on this blog saying that, I could *MAYBE* understand how you wouldn't agree. But your hackjob treatment has yet to find one unequivocal supporter. I made a suggestion for a Superman film. Is every single commenter here going to say "yep, that's *my* Superman, right there!" No, probably not, but they also won't think that I've completely pissed on everything the character's ever been presented as.
Your character is not Superman. You can call him anything you like in your (mercifully never-to-be-produced) treatment but, as Singer discovered the hard way, it takes more than simply calling a character "Superman" to make him, in fact, Superman.
"God only knows where BATMAN is headed,"
That franchise has been rebooted and takes a heavy influence from more modern comics. This doesn't strengthen your point.
"SPIDER-MAN's still got maturity issues to work out"
The producers who have crafted those films around the comics (with admittedly minor alterations here and there) are crying every step of the way to the bank. This doesn't strengthen your point.
"STAR TREK"
Without the benefit of seeing the film just yet, it looks like it'll be fairly consistent with what Star Trek has always been, just with more character development and larger scale action. This doesn't strengthen your point.
"and JAMES BOND"
There's nothing in the new Bond films (character wise) to really differentiate from the original franchise. The tone has changed (it's now The Bond Identity) but the character is more or less who he always was. This doesn't strengthen your point.
"IRON MAN has just taken off."
The movie relies on the spirit (if not the outright *letter*) of the comics. This doesn't strengthen your point.
"Or as Lex once put it: "Even with all this accumulated knowledge, when will these dummies learn to use a doorknob?"When I said this guy was going to "dial the shields up to 11" I was waaaayyyy OFF. This guy has taken it to a WHOLE 'NOTHER LEVEL.
ReplyDeleteWant to know what's "killing us", milkywhitespray? Your continued lack of comprehension, and belief that YOU have done what "no one else" has been able to do with Superman. You IGNORE the good points made to counter your "argument", and respond to others without responding. You take the COWARDS way out, and it is tiresome to read.
I would rather there be NO secret-identity, than the ludicrous notion that the world "knows", and Superman is either a deaf idiot, or a screwed-up in the head individual that is playing some SICK "game" with the world by letting them think HE doesn't know that THEY know.
Your idea Singerman'd, and you REFUSE to accept that.
Don't even think of schooling me on SPIDER-MAN, IRON MAN, TREK or BOND. I was there with all of them from the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteYOUR Superman's story is over. Singer made the brand name 'toxic.' You would have your SV continuation or DCU comic book character go through the motions of a hero whose quest has already ended.
However well it's done, it's too late.
You want YOUR Superman. Sorry, but the NEXT Superman must leave YOUR Superman behind.
And you with him.
"Don't even think of schooling me on SPIDER-MAN, IRON MAN, TREK or BOND. I was there with all of them from the very beginning."
ReplyDeleteYeah, remember guys, this nut is ageless. Pretty soon he'll be talking like the Guardian of Forever from the original Star Trek TV series, who when Spock asked him if he was a machine or something, he responded:
I am both, & neither, yada yada yada.
Remember, you guys, MilkyCreamySecretions was there when it ALL started. Or he's in his parents' basement. YOU decide.
"YOUR Superman's story is over. Singer made the brand name 'toxic.' You would have your SV continuation or DCU comic book character go through the motions of a hero whose quest has already ended."And HERE we point out ANOTHER failure to comprehend. Shocking.
ReplyDeleteHow many people here, by a show of hands, think that BS drew inspiration from Smallville OR the DCU?
Ok, by another show of hands, how many think his REFUSAL to do so added to the HORRID "result" we were ALL punished with?
We have YET to have a Superman based on the DCU version, with the characters and story-arcs that WE as fans are WAITING FOR. The ONLY people who do not want this are NOT fans of the character, but fans of their OWN small-minds. i.e. Apologists/milkywhitespray.
Want to know what would be a GREAT way to start off the NEW Superman franchise? Superman #775, or "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice and The American Way?". Have a Superman that is not only established, but considered "not as cool" as OTHER superhero's. Those willing to do ANYTHING to stop the bad guys. In the end, when these "hero's" decide it's time to retire Superman permanent-like, they, along with the entire WORLD, learn just WHO is "The Man". Show Superman take these guys out using ALL of his abilities, NOT killing them and ending with his speech to a SPEECHLESS Manchester Black. The general audience will walk out of the theater with a NEW appreciation for the character, and a new "jumping on point" for them.
I sure hope he does leave us all behind, because he isn't my Superman if he is your rendition.
ReplyDeleteI am sooooooo glad that you are the know all be all for every comic book hero. I sure am not because I do have a life. It is obvious that you don't. I sure hope that someday you get one.
Like I said before, try again don't try to feed us this crap anymore. We don't want it. Go ahead and post this on any other site that has anything to do with Superman. I dare you. I am sure that you won't get any more positive reviews than you have gotten here.
I have written several stories, and I have them posted if you want to read them go ahead. I am sure you won't like them because your idea is sooooooooooo much better than anyone elses. I do not profess to be a pulitzer prize winning author, but I dare say at least the reviews I have recieved have all been positive. So you can KMA, and shut the heck up. We all seem to be saying the same thing to you. Give it a frigging rest!
Um...excuse me for just a second while I let you in on a secret about Star Trek....
ReplyDeleteIt's a sequel.
It takes place in the SAME continuity as the original films and much like in Star Trek 4, we get a time travel story where we are finally able to see Kirk become a captain and go on his first voyage.
As for Iron Man, it was so amazingly faithful to the source material while giving it an updated time line. Vietnam simply became Afghanistan. Okay. Big deal. But they HONORED THE PAST.
Spider-Man has been made for kids. Period. Because of that, it makes bank whether it's good or not. I personally haven't been a big fan of that franchise thus far. SM3 should be banned and erased in my opinion.
This will be the last time I respond to any of this silly commentary so I leave you with one final statement.
You are correct in that Superman IS the comic icon of icons. But you just slipped up in saying we need to go back to Siegel and Shuster and give him a new twist to start it all over. In order to garner the kind of attraction that Superman has had over the last 70 years, not only would you need to create a new Superman, but an entirely new character all together. You put the "S" on his chest and tell a different story, you'll be laughed at by millions. You are insane to believe otherwise. "Elseworld" stories are understandable to comic readers. They are absolute and total confusion to the general public.
I'm not, nor was I ever, looking for Smallville the Movie. I want and expect a Superman film. It's become clear that what you want is beyond anyone's comprehension but your own.
"This is the home of the ongoing campaign to restore honor and respect to the Superman film franchise."
ReplyDeleteWell, now that you've thoroughly vented on my Superman, get to work on YOURS.
Sharon said she'd written a couple of stories. Where are they?
Steve, don't give us the 'copyright' excuse. Go back to word one, rewrite YOUR Superman and post it.
If my Superman is the absolute worst you've ever read, you've got nowhere to go but up.
Get started.
I have a completed trilogy. But I'm not the only writer and have an agreement not to discuss anything that hadn't been posted on SaveSuperman.com already. Sorry. Don't know what else to tell you except you will get to see it at some point down the road.
ReplyDeleteS-
ReplyDelete'One is either determined to be a writer or has already written.'
Only by being the former can one become the latter.
Keep your trilogy on ice and use your website to further deepen your vision of SUPERMAN. To believe you've already got it done gives you no place to go.
Start a new story from Word One. It's not as if you're waiting at the keyboard and looking out the window for that limo from WB.
Not saying your trilogy is 'bad' or 'wrong' or anything like that, but if you're not willing to further explore the future of the greatest hero in all of literature, you're stuck in your own story and refuse to admit it.
You are going to learn something from me, aren't you?
Steve, why do you keep putting up with this crap?! To quote:
ReplyDelete"You are going to learn something from me, aren't you?"
Just how condescending is this guy going to get? I don't believe anything that anyone can say will sway this guy.
It wouldn't surprise me if he isn't a troll from duh Homopage, or BlueNuts, or SingerHomoHype. Could he be that FilmNerdJamie that thought he had your number? Whoever he is, he's becoming extremely irritating! :(
“It is a wise man who learns from his own mistakes; it is a wiser man who learns from the mistakes of others.”
ReplyDeleteWe both agree that SUPERMAN RETURNS was a dreadful mistake and can rag on Singer forever, but the one thing Singer DID understand is that the HUMANITY of Superman is best revealed in the Clark Kent/Superman/Lois Lane ‘triangle.’
Writing around the heart and soul of the character leaves Superman an empty shell. Moreover, the THEME of the story MUST be an insight into the humanity of SUPERMAN we haven’t seen before.
“A story has a beginning, a middle and an end,” wrote Aristotle more than 2000 years ago and it remains the bedrock structure of storytelling.
With Superman, the absolute hardest part is THE BEGINNING. Not so much where but WHEN. His origin has been done and redone, Smallville did his growing up. His first appearance can’t be done any better. So WHEN does the story begin?
Needless to say, open with an action scene. Earthquakes, bank robberies and inflight airplane catastrophes have already been done. So…
Have Superman stop a Third World war by melting down the weapons of both sides? Preventing a Katrina-like flood? The point is to show Superman’s power and purpose from Word One.
Then where does Superman GO?
As you belong to the ‘Clark Kent is Superman’ school and keeping with the DCU mythos, and most important of all, to show us a Superman we’ve never seen on film before, have Superman fly home to his wife, Lois Lane.
(As I belong to the ‘Superman becomes Clark Kent’ side, I wasted no time in showing my twist of the premise. Neither should you.)
A story is composed of concept/characters/CONFLICT. Whichever supervillain you pit the Man of Steel against, (Stay away from Luthor, please. And avoid Brainiac as that could take us to Kandor, overcomplicating the story.) the conflict that will best reveal Superman’s HUMANITY will be between The Man of Steel and (Gulp!) his wife. Together they will decide on how Clark Kent should best help humanity.
Sure, there will be plenty of action and FX, that’s EXPECTED. A compelling conflict between Clark Kent and Mrs. Kent on SUPERMAN’s role on earth and beyond could give us a deeper understanding of the HUMANITY of Superman in a way we never saw coming.
DUH-UH, MilkyCreamySecretions, look at how you contradict your OWN story:
ReplyDelete"Whichever supervillain you pit the Man of Steel against, (Stay away from Luthor, please. And avoid Brainiac as that could take us to Kandor, overcomplicating the story.)"
Excuse me, but didn't you use BOTH Luthor AND Brainiac in your 'excrement'? I believe I recall Kandor also, & didn't you have Metroplois also shrunken by Brainiac? But you advise us NOT to use them?!
Like I said, DUH-UH-UH!
Wake up! I used Luthor for an intro 'fighting scene' I could follow-up with at the climax.
ReplyDeleteBrainiac got us to Kandor in a state of eternal sameness (As too many see Superman!). Rather than be an 'eternal champion', Superman is 'an ever-changing hero.'
You name your villains in search of new truth, not just for action scenes and FX.
How has ONE guy managed to hi-jack this entire site? geez...
ReplyDeleteDarn thing ate my post again. As I was trying to say...I have my stories posted at Operation Save Clark Kent. I do not claim to be a great writer. One story is called The Dream Ends which is a fan-fic for Smallville...how I would off Lana. The other story is simply called Krypton. It is a story about Jor-El and Lara in the years proceeding the destruction of Krypton. I am sure you wouldn't be interested in my using adult figures for the parents of Kal-El. I enjoyed writing it. The last story I am currently working on is called Dreamweaver. I haven't had time to work on it lately. I am sure that you will hate all my stories because they weren't thought of by you. But don't call me a liar either. I would post them here, but we don't have a fan-fic section. I have put up, so you will shut the Hell up.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone would like to read my stories, I would be glad to send them to you. I haven't recieved any bad reviews unlike your story which has recieved nothing but bad reviews. I have had one story read over 235 times. I am not sure how many on the other ones. One is in the adult fan-fic part of the forum and you need a password to access it.
Guys, have any of you seen these fan made videos from this guy Selutron. He took footage from the Reeve Superman films and created these scenes. Truly incredible great work if you ask me. The videos are at the bottom of the page.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.capedwonder.com/newwebsite/pages/selutron.html
Don't tell me that MilkyCreamySecretions has run everyone else off from THIS particular thread?
ReplyDeleteWell, in a sense, the thread was for people to debate and discuss HIS idea of a Superman reboot.
ReplyDeleteI think we did that until some of our heads exploded. But now, I'm just waiting for the voting to end so we can officially move on.
My head didn't explode, he asked for an opinion. I gave it to him.
ReplyDeleteHe pretty much called me a liar, saying where is the work I said I had done. SOB! well it is there for everyone to read.
I just hope he is done trolling here and making everyone mad. I could do without it.
If you want a mild riot in a large room, during yet another pennant chase, fill it half with diehard Yankee fans, and the other half with Red Sox Nation.
ReplyDeleteWant to up the decimal count a bit? Late in the season, NY football Giants’ fans versus Philadelphia Eagles’ fanatics.
But if you want the ultimate confrontation of one side against another and another with yet another till the windows rattle, fill the whole room up with SUPERMAN fans.
Seems there are more Supermen than Yankees and more Clark Kents’ than football Giants.
Welcome to the Super War of the Mythos! Not that the Man of Steel has been exhaustedly enhanced via various histories. Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, and of course, BATMAN share the same ‘multiple personalities,’ depending on the actor, the screenscribe, by those who inherit the sacred ink of the Creator.
More than a dozen actors have played Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan. By comparison, BATMAN’s just getting started. Their ‘mythos’ go up and down, but the words of Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs are scripture forever. And so are Bob Kane’s.
As first put to paper 70 years ago, Superman by Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster is The Word of The Creator. Those young men wrote the sacred canon, Superman Scripture.
After and from Scripture comes ‘mythos.’ (Luthor, Kandor, Brainiac, JLA etc.)
Therein lies the incredible irony of the Man of Steel. While rival clans clash on who the next Superman should be, and whom he should love and fight and maybe team up with late, as they spout and shout out countless conflicting visions…Yes, Superman fans know and love their ‘mythos,’ but they seem to have forgotten their Super-Scripture.
The lone stronghold of the SUPERMAN franchise is SMALLVILLE, the 9-year cable series about Clark Kent growing up to become Superman. That’s the super story-line of SMALLVILLE – Clark Kent growing up to become Superman.
Criticize SMALLVILLE all you like, but it was new and it’s still young.
Two things I’m certain of: 1) SMALLVILLE fans love their Clark Kent and 2) Tom Welling isn’t getting any younger.
But in capturing the hearts of the young at heart all around the world and generating a 9-year ‘mythos,’ SMALLVILLE violated Super-Scripture.
Do NOT argue anybody’s Scripture, and that includes SUPERMAN, and SUPERBOY,’ The Adventures of Superman When He was a Boy.’
Like an heroic crown prince deserving to become king, and seized by outsiders and removed from the royal bloodline, Superboy was suddenly deleted from the Superman ‘mythos.’ Not that the Boy of Steel is dead, he’s been trying to survive the ‘Phantom Zone’ that is the American Judicial System since before many SMALLVILLE fans had been born.
Should SMALLVILLE fans be outraged? Can ‘mythos’ usurp Scripture?
Actually the opposite, SMALLVILLE and SUPERMAN fans across the ‘mythos’ should be overjoyed.
For thirty years SUPERMAN lovers have had their hearts broken by Hollywood. All want to see a new, young Superman true to his ‘mythos’. New supervillains to fight, new action scenes and breakthrough 3-D FX!
But we already know that Superman. We already know the ‘mythos’. We want a new, young Superman to take us to a place we’ve never been before to tell us a new truth.
Chuck the ‘mythos’ that’s been aging every day for more than half a century. Seek out the Super-Scripture - an original creation of Siegel and Shuster…
SUPERBOY
‘The Adventures of SUPERMAN When He was a Boy’
The roar of raving mad Superman fans threatens to blow off the roof. They want their Man of Steel in a neverending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way! Which version of Lois Lane will show up this time around or will the writers add to her ‘mythos’?
SMALLVILLE fans know better. They believe that the best, most insightful stories in all the Man of Steel’s ‘mythos’ are about Clark Kent growing up, the most exciting and most stressed time in all our lives.
That’s what SUPERBOY would be about:
SUPERMAN growing up.
What we loyal fanboys, more than anything else, want to do all over again..
And now we have our very own resident false prophet, leading his cult.
ReplyDeleteSuperboy is Scripture. SMALLVILLE is 'mythos' which 'changed' and 'reinvented' Clark Kent.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you think for a comic book minute that WB is going to invest in a DCU trilogy?
Please, it's that a Superman 'mythos' movie would be bad, but worse, about 20,30,40 or 50 years LATE.
SMALLVILLE history you may not know.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scifidimensions.com/Aug06/stallville.htm
Superman article by his creator, Jerry Siegel:
ReplyDeletehttp://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/superman/45thanniversary.html
No more biting criticism?
ReplyDeleteGee, guys. For the first time, Superman fans, you disappoint me.
Could it be that they're tired of all of the CRAPOLA? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOoops have trouble with the site again. My original post was...
ReplyDeleteIf we leave him alone, will he go away?
"No more biting criticism?"
ReplyDeleteYa know that pulsing, throbbing sensation you get from ramming your head against a brick wall? It's a lot like attempting to have some kind of reasonable discourse with you on any level.
Speaking only for myself, let me just say that your little "Stallville" article revealed basically nothing that justifies your opinions about a "brave new Superman" movie that has such people in it. I thought about asking you for clarification as to what exactly it is you're getting at but I decided not to, fearing that it might only yield yet another post from you which doesn't really answer anything but does repeat your, ahem, "point" for the 9 billionth time. I didn't find it convincing before, thus it seems unlikely that I would now. You didn't "win" anything, I at least am just trying not to encourage you.
Steve, I'm having trouble viewing this site on Internet Explorer; Firefox seems just fine. Can you fix this?
ReplyDeleteIE7 and IE8 get updated faster and more frequently than the site servers do, but problems should only ever be temporary.
ReplyDeleteJJ Abrams on his 2002 Superman script:
ReplyDeleteBut Mr. Abrams has a mixed history when it comes to reinventing film franchises. Around 2002 he wrote a script for a possible new “Superman” movie that was criticized for the extensive revisions it made to that comic-book hero’s history. (In Mr. Abrams’s story, for example, the villain Lex Luthor turned out to be from Superman’s home planet of Krypton.)
Today, Mr. Abrams said, he understands the mistakes he made with his “Superman” screenplay. “It’s tantamount to doing a story about Santa Claus and saying that he’s from Kansas,” he said.
Exactly. You MUST honor the source material and it's past. If not, you will NEVER succeed.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely RIGHT, Steve. But do not confuse 'mythos' with SOURCE MATERIAL as written by Siegel. He began the 'mythos' which followed and, regardless of quality, is second-hand SUPERMAN.
ReplyDeleteSMALLVILLE as 'source material'? Surely you jest.
And please, PLEASE don't tell me that JLA or any non-Siegel DCU is SOURCE MATERIAL.
ReplyDeleteNot a question of how long it's been running or how good or popular it is or how much YOU love it.
It's 'mythos,' NOT source material.
Put this in your SMALLVILLE pipe and smoke it:
http://theages.superman.nu/encyc/superboy-first.gif
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletewhen do we get to drink the magic kool-aid together?
ReplyDeleteYou folks are saying that the DCU and SMALLVILLE are 'source material'. Sorry, they're not.
ReplyDeleteWe rightly condemn the lazy, gutless Singer for cribbing the 'Donner-verse' and giving us a lousy SUPERMAN, but you would have your 'new' Superman a continuation of dated 'mythos.'
Any one of you actually read a book ABOUT Superman? You know, RESEARCH?
Lib said: "when do we get to drink the magic kool-aid together?"
ReplyDeleteSomehow I don't think it will make his story any better. I still ain't buying it. I keep hoping that he will give up.
As for your comments about Smallville, keep em to yourself. If you don't like it...too bad. It is a lot better than the crap you keep shoveling. Did your comprehensive research do you any damned good? We still all think your story sucks and doesn't go along with the Superman mythos either. What makes you think your treatment of Superman is "better" than Smallville? Get over thyself egomaniac.
Sharon:
ReplyDeleteYou've been waiting 9 years for Welling to wear the tights, waiting for the end of a story you knew was coming 9 years ago.
That commitment has done wonderful things for you. I hope Welling keep you waiting another 9 years, Just imagine how you'll benefit.
"And please, PLEASE don't tell me that JLA or any non-Siegel DCU is SOURCE MATERIAL."
ReplyDeleteYou and you alone have that opinion of the source material (which consists of a hell of a lot more than the Siegel/Shuster period).
SOURCE MATERIAL is that written by the character's creator whether it be SUPERMAN, TARZAN, SHERLOCK HOLMES, etc.
ReplyDeleteSMALLVILLE is 'Clark Kent' mythos.
Actually just to burst your little bubble MWW, I never expected to see the suit in Smallville.
ReplyDeleteAt least I am not a pig headed moron, I can understand that a lot of things they did/do in the show was because of difficulties getting authorization to do it the way they should. OMG if you don't like the show then don't F'Ing watch it. I enjoy it and take it as it was intended...entertainment.
I am entertained by the show, unlike your story which I still find dull, and moronic. Give up your attempt to make everyone believe you hold the Superman "gospel" in your hot, sweaty little hands.
I think everyone else should read your story, just so you can get everyone elses opinion of your crap besides mine.
I have read Superman comics...I don't study them and write down every aspect so I can throw it in ppl's faces trying to come off as superior because of my knowledge. I have also watched GR, CR, DC portrals of Superman. I hate to say it but the only one that makes Clark look like an idiot is the CR movies. the bumbling dumbass take on Clark is a little over the top. I loved CR Superman though.
I am not saying that Smallville is perfect. But it is a "different take on Clark/Superman". Isn't that what you want? Change, change, change,...
Oh and Smallville has only been on for 8 years so far...not 9 so I guess I haven't waited that long. I also like TW portrayal of Clark Kent. This season especially...season 8. Oh and how am I going to suffer? I get to see a show that I find entertaining with a lead actor that has the look I imagine for Superman...I ain't suffering at all.
Also when in this forum did I gush about Smallville? I told you to leave the show alone if you don't like it fine, but dissing everyone that does...is kind of...hmm displaced anger. Your just mad that no one likes your story so you lash out irrationally at everyone, picking apart their posts and posting your rants...complete with your lectures.
"Putting a much-loved but over-the-hill vehicle back in shape takes more than a new battery and a lick of paint. It demands a full-bore refit, and that's exactly what J.J. Abrams has given "Star Trek."
ReplyDeleteA shining example of reboot MINDSET. Steve and others want a DCU epic while so many want a SMALLVILLE continuation.
Whatever I think of SMALLVILLE is irrelevant. SV is cable TV series, brilliant or boring, that will NOT play a part in the Superman reboot.
Superman as a 'comic book superhero' is dated thinking. As for my story, heck. I've already moved on to another treatment.
Would it be even possible for any of you to think of Superman, not as DCU or SV, but right from the beginning, as a unique HUMAN EXPERIENCE?
Think about it.
"Change" and "New Perception" are the mantras of ANY new president, Dem or Rep. So don't give me 'politics'.
ReplyDeleteSV 'changed' the Superman 'mythos' to give us a "new perception' of Clark Kent that has lasted for 9 years.
Fine, but time to move on and give those 'fallen' Superman fans a "new perception" of the greatest hero in all of literature.
And you disagree with that?
MWW wrote: "Whatever I think of SMALLVILLE is irrelevant. SV is cable TV series, brilliant or boring, that will NOT play a part in the Superman reboot"
ReplyDeleteThen why do you keep stressing it?
" Would it be even possible for any of you to think of Superman, not as DCU or SV, but right from the beginning, as a unique HUMAN EXPERIENCE?"
Then it wouldn't be Superman would it. Oh and thank God you have moved onto another treatment. Hopefully more respectful of the character. No more idiot Superman.
Human experience? What like Clark was raised by humans and given human values?
I never said I wanted a Smallville contiuation. I want a kick ass, hold onto your seat, movie. I want action, yes, but without some kind of story that is plausible you have...nothing. I want to care about the characters, hurt when they hurt, share in their victory...which is the end result that we all expect. Or do you want to change that too. Perhaps...Superman all alone on a dead planet...Oops someone already tried to sell that crap too.
Why is everyone indulging this guy...He wants people to have an open mind but he is the ONE who needs be open minded of what everyone wants, and that is..... a movie not based on HIS CRAZY SUPERMAN STORY.
ReplyDeleteThis guy is like a gnat that wont go away
Funny, 1938, we haven't heard one idea, one suggestion on a SUPERMAN 'reboot,' the mission of this site, from you.
ReplyDeleteDo you have ANYTHING to say that might resemble original thinking?
Sharon: "I want a kick ass, hold onto your seat, movie."
ReplyDeleteThat makes good sense, but keep in mind that VAN HELSING and LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN were FULL of kick ass action and FX, yet painful to watch.
A SUPERMAN reboot must be about (Gulp!) SUPERMAN, yet cannot tell the same old story everybody knows and has had enough of.
In studying the SOURCE MATERIAL, the most incredible scene in the Superman STORY never shown on film is when a very young Clark Kent, alone in his room with the red, yellow and blue swaddling, makes his own costume, and announces to his parents, and then the world...
"I am Superboy!"
The inner conflict has nothing to do with Krypton or keeping his 'secret identity' secret (Stories we've already been told.), but when one is Superboy, why would he EVER want to be Clark Kent again?
DoucheBag
ReplyDeletePlease re-read the other topics carefully than focusing on your own crap. I have left a synopsis awhile ago.
See what I mean no open mind...Its all about "My Brave New Sing.uh Superman!"
Yeah, yet another DCU Superman. And if your synopsis was whatever, how come it got no reaction?
ReplyDeleteAnd you never bothered to push it? If you don't even care about it, why should anyone else?
"Superman appears and stuns the world."
Go UP from there without going BACK and you might get somewhere.
We're all waiting.
Douche Bag
ReplyDeleteI am not like you I don't like push SHIT down people's throats....
Wait I will be like you so I can get responses...
Superman is a hermaphrodite... he can reproduce himself...
"Stunning!"
Lois and Lex Luthor are Siamese twins
Superman has no parents and was sent to Earth by Braniac in a test tube....
"Out of this world!"
Superman is repressed because of his anatomy.
And
By the way he is found by Teens couple Martha and Jonathan Kent
Oh I am so brilliant!
Please someone praise this masterpiece...Wait I hear WB calling
They'll send a limo. Wear your clean pants.
ReplyDeleteHere's another one:
ReplyDelete"Supes is gay, like M. Way!"
Oops! The already sorta DID that one, didn't they?! ;)
" Here's another one:
ReplyDelete"Supes is gay, like M. Way!"
Oops! The already sorta DID that one, didn't they?! ;)"
LOL
On Siegel, Superman & WB
ReplyDeleteWorth a read.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6323787.html
Notice how MilkyCreamySecretions just totally ignores us, ANY of us!
ReplyDeleteCum on, MCS, you know you want THAT?! And besides, we've got to make Superman a 'human interest' story, complete with human turmoil, so WHY NOT a Supes who has to deal with his sexuality? And to make it right up your alley, we'll let his interest be Bruce/Bats! Certainly that whets the apologists' appettite(s). ;)
A Superman reboot is a PROCESS; you throw doo-doo up against a wall and hopefully, sooner or later, something will stick.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there are those doo-doos who see this reboot quest as a soapbox for their own agenda.
And we're supposed to acknowledge them?
"Unfortunately, there are those doo-doos who see this reboot quest as a soapbox for their own agenda."
ReplyDeleteyeah you!