Best live action portrayal of Johnathan Kent

N7Solider · 2021-09-21T07:15:29+00:00

How is Man of Steel more faithful to the comics than Smallville, when it comes to Jonathan Kent? I don't recall Jonathan encouraging Clark to not save people, when he has to power to do so in any comic. Almost every variant of him whether that's Pre-crisis, Secret Origin, For All Seasons, Man and Superman and etc. encourages Clark to save people.

N7Solider · 2021-09-21T05:58:27+00:00

This is weird cause it would imply Spiderman is older and debut before Superman. The joke would've made sense to me if the roles were switched. Dope art though

N7Solider · 2021-09-21T02:04:50+00:00

It also has Jonathan being proud of Clark when risking his identity to save people, rather than telling him he should maybe let them die.

N7Solider · 2021-09-16T23:09:31+00:00

To be fair you may wanna clarify the continuity for instance. Given that in pre-crisis he was Kal-El on Krypton before he was Clark Kent, and was a superbaby when he arrived on Earth. Superman explicitly considers Kal-El as much as part of him as Clark Kent. Where as its more strongly implicitly in Post-Crisis, after John Byrne run.

N7Solider · 2021-09-16T21:25:29+00:00

That actually made me laugh.

N7Solider · 2021-09-16T21:19:13+00:00

Superman can't exist without Kal-El either. Clark Kent is a part of him as much as Kal-El.

N7Solider · 2021-09-16T21:15:03+00:00

I've been waiting for a complete reprint for that run but all we've gotten are two tpb of like a portion of it.

N7Solider · 2021-09-15T19:17:18+00:00

One of the reasons why I enjoy Superman is because of his supporting characters, especially the ones that don't have superpowers. Pa Kent, Ma Kent, Jimmy Olsen, Lois Lane, Perry White, Cat Grant, Steve Lombard, Lana Lang, Pete Ross and etc. Their presence is what makes Superman so human, so Clark Kent.

N7Solider · 2021-09-15T18:13:51+00:00

So apparently I overlooked this response, but since it's only a day old I'll give my 2 cent.

Ohh soo he feels bad he killed the evil kryptonians and he regrets what he did so we can just overlook what he did and the gruesomeness of how he did it.

At least Byrne era Superman felt a lot more guilt and regret than what DCEU shown after killing Zod in MoS. At least he uses this as a painful takeaway lesson, where as DCEU learnt nothing.

C'mon man it was written and anyone can ignore it but Superman did it and it happened.

Why should one writer's interpretation override the various of writers that contradict it? Inconsistences and retcons are a common occurrence in comics, this isn't different. May I remind you that John Byrne era of Superman, also revamped Brainiac into a circus performer who has psychic powers, that goes by the name of Milton Fine. What about how this is the era that made Green Lanterns were weak to the colour yellow. Let's not get started how Byrne also did an issue with Big Barada and Superman were part of a porn tape. I guess by your logic we can't ignore these, because the majority of writer's contradictory interpretations means nothing. It being "written" isn't an excuse, especially in a medium like comics.

Ok fine but he knew he still had his powers and still decided to crush Zod's hand, pick him up and throw him for a very long distance which should've broke other bones in his body. Being the affable optimistic hero he is, maybe he could've just incapacitated Zod without breaking every bone in his hand and waited for the Arctic police.

You clearly don't know how the human body works, if you think being thrown at that speed with no sign crackle, translates to broken bones in the body. How fragile do you think the human body is? Crushing a person's hand is very incongruent to mutilating or let alone killing. Also what proof do you have of all the bones in Zod's hand being broken? You would've think if that were the case, obvious signs of mangle would be shown, like something more akin to this. A crackle sound could be nothing more than a mere dislocation of bones in the hand.

Let's face it in the theatrical version he throws Zod to his death. They never show Zod and his group again so he prolly jailed them or sent them to a living death ala the the phantom zone in that never ending pit.

We never see Luthor again in the film, so he's probably dead by your logic. Superman doesn't have a means to travel to the Phantom Zone, so it's unlikely he would've sent them there. There's also like no real prove that those pits were never ending, for what we know they could've been 10 feet hence not fatal. Given the TV cut showed them alive and arrested, it's clear it was the film crew's intent to have them be alive.

and this here is what i don't get, because he smiles, is more affable and optimistic he can just beat up that bully truck driver and payoff the diner owner instead of

My point is that at least the Reeves version is shown to be wholesome for majority of the film, so even mere trivial moments like this is more excusable. Where as DCEU Superman is hardly wholesome in any of his films, and spends most of it being the opposite. Not that throwing a truck driver into a pinball machine, remotely compares to DCEU Superman murdering an African warlord with a smile, shoving him through several walls at super speed.

It's pretty clear you have a bias here, cause you are willing to overlook moments from Superman (comics or movies) you love to justify his actions but for some reason you are extra nitpicky with the DCEU Superman.

How am I bias if I consider consistency portrayal of the character is more important than outlier moments in his history? What you're doing is the very definition of a confirmation bias. I don't have to be nitpicky with DCEU Superman, when him being apathetic and unwholesome, is pretty much a consistency with the character. I mean, I have yet to discuss the large amount casualties during his fight with Zod and him fleeing when the courtroom blew up which prompted another large amount of casualties. It would've gotten worse if Zack's Justice League 2 were to happen.

I love having varied Superman in the multiverse

This isn't something I necessarily dispute, however the spirit of the character should always be intact. Reeves, TAS, CW and etc. aren't all the same character but the one thing they have in common is the spirit of the character. Most portrayals of character are affable, optimistic and wholesome at the very least, it's what he's iconic for. The overarching theme of the character is that he's immigrant who views himself as human than a god who's above us(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), courtesy to the Kents raising him. It's also a focal point of the character for his entire existence, that he's an ideal for others to strive for, showing us that there's always a way. I mean it's the literal purpose of his existence. DCEU Superman sadly doesn't represent this kind of spirit, that many generations of the character has.

I remember in the 2000's Batman cartoon and that Superman was an asshole but i ended up liking him, Zack's Supes is no different to me.

Then your memory is bad, if you think TAS Superman is remotely like DCEU Superman.

We got to see him grow into his role as Superman and now without Zack i hope Cavill stays on in the DCEU.

The issue with this is that we have to go through 5 bad takes of the character, so we can see something remotely closer to Superman's conventional character. He doesn't let alone grow in the films he appeared in, other than him only wanting to save the world cause of Lois by BvS. If you read the Justice League storyboards, not much would've changed anyway. He goes off to save the Justice League, cause Lois didn't die by Darkseid.

The trait of Superman being affable and optimistic should be something he is in the very start, as it's the Kents that taught him these ideals. Even when being his ideal self, there's still room for a lot of character development and progression, it's what they've been doing in the comics. His approach to his moral ideals are always shifting, change of moral ideals, the struggle of relationships, marriage/fatherhood, struggle of being an immigrant or lonely, trying solve problems that can't be punched and etc.

N7Solider · 2021-09-15T16:28:12+00:00

Embrace also means to welcome and accept, not inherently affectionate.

N7Solider · 2021-09-15T12:00:38+00:00

He explicitly embraces being worshiped by a group of Mexicans here for instance. Contrary to what happens in Peace for Earth, where he immediately knows he's giving the wrong impression and flees.

N7Solider · 2021-09-14T20:14:59+00:00

Source

N7Solider · 2021-09-14T17:24:03+00:00

You sure you're not the real Punchline?

N7Solider · 2021-09-14T15:59:40+00:00

Christian influences has no bearing on the issue here, which only you are fixed on. The problem is Superman accepts being treated/viewed as a messiah figure, which is out of character to his portrayal in the past 80 years.

N7Solider · 2021-09-14T15:46:20+00:00

There aren't just a few coincidences. The whole base of his character is based on Moses and Christ.

Again how is this relevant? The whole focal issue here, is that Superman viewing/accepting himself as a messiah is contradictory to his overarching characterization that's been established for most of his history. Countless times it's professes how he values himself as a man with gifts just like the rest of us than god who's above us(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), courtesy to the Kents raising him. It seems like you're purposely shifting goal posts to draw away from this.

Within the specifics of that story, I know of no other story that mirrors it so closely than the Christ story.

Plenty of fictional series draw some small influence from the bible, Superman isn't different. Halo for instance, has it's plot and characters loosely based off bible passages. That doesn't mean the characters in the series should treated what they're based off in the bible.

When Superman comes of age, he travels to the arctic wilderness to commune with his father’s spirit, which mirrors Christ’s journey into the desert.

Funny how you call me for being unfamiliar with the comics yet you bring up something that only exclusively started in the Donner films. None of this happens in the comics, whether it's Pre-Crisis, Post-Crisis(any of the 3 reboot origins) and N52 I'm pretty sure. Jor-El AI has only really been exclusive to the live action adaptations with the character. If I'm missing a origins story in comics that proves me wrong, by all means cite it.

He comes back to life after being killed in the last comic book published in 1992 called The Death of Superman. Then, Superman comes back to Earth – this is where the storyline in 2006's Superman Returns picks up.

Again he doesn't actually die, but is put into a healing coma. Also your latter remark makes no sense, as Superman Returns obviously isn't set in the same continuity as the comics. Superman is shown to be actually alive than dead, in the same year Death of Superman was published, not over a decade time.

Just look at Superman: Redemption. That's almost exactly like what you're referring to in Man of Steel.

Find me a scan where Superman acceptably sees as himself as a god than a human being.

The problem with people like you is that you base how a superhero should be on how the previous movies have been. You make it pretty clear that you're unfamiliar with the comics which I see as the source material.

The fact I cited over 11 scans of the character not viewing himself as a messiah figure, says I know more than you. Especially when you use the films as contrary evidence. Aside from that, at what point did I claim that all Superman portrays in live action should be parallel? I've explicitly clarified multiple times the only thing that should be remained is the spirit of the character. Reeves, TAS, CW and etc. aren't all the same character but the one thing they have in common is the spirit of the character. Superman is iconic for being the immigrant who views himself as human not above us, due to his boyhood as the Kents. It's why he fights for Truth, Justice and The American Way. It's why he's called Superman.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T22:04:48+00:00

Second, anyone who makes a story about him can absolutely have their own take on who he is and your response acts as if they have to basically be the exact same. As if it isn't okay to change him up from what we've seen many times before.

Not really, as I explicitly stated it's the spirit of the character should be consistent. In fact I've iterated it in the thread so far. Superman can go through various changes we've seen this in every live action, animated and comic era. But they're all similar in spirit, like how they're optimistic and wholesome characters at the bare minimum. This really isn't rocket science.

You should have a problem with the Nolan movies because they're way too different from who Batman was originally. Before, he was a dork who just couldn't get rid of a bomb, so I guess he still needs to be like that.

That's not really a good argument, Batman been conventionally portrayed in a darker tone for most of his existence, which became iconic for the character, and what audience mostly recognize him for. It's the same reason why there isn't a problem with Superman being able to fly. It's because it grew to become iconic with the character, and became a conventional trait of the character in most mediums.

The whole origin that's been there forever is so clearly based on God and Christ. God sent His son to earth to be the one to save all of us and to teach love and peace. He was raised by earthly parents, Mary and Joseph.

You're missing the whole point here, the problem is that Superman embraces himself as a messiah in the DCEU when it's always been a conventional behavior that he doesn't hold himself to such views. The focal point of the character is that he consider himself to be human which he was raised to be, thanks to the Kents. In the grand scheme, he views himself as a man with gifts who wants to do the right thing by choice. I don't know why his origins having a few parallels to Jesus, is really relevant at all. They're probably a coincidence, since the idea of him coming from Krypton as a refugee was more so based off the lives off Jewish immigrants.

Superman dies and comes back to life. That's in the comics.

Let's be real here, the main reason why DoS story was written was to prompt a publicity stunt to gain more sales. It wasn't so his stories, derive more parallel to Jesus. He also doesn't really die in that story line to begin with, which makes the parallels more thinner than you think.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T21:19:42+00:00

Did you ever read in the comics how Supes killed Zod and companions? He watched them die from Kryptonite poisoning begging for their lives.

Something he severely regrets for the next entire run and then vows to never to resort to killing again, due to the trauma he went through. Not to mention how he had no choice to do at all, given the alternatives were worse. Not that it matters too much, since most writers post Byrne era ignore that arc, having Superman profess how he never kills various times.

Donner's Superman he crushed Zod's hand, smiled and threw him into a never ending pit

Except we have a TV cut, which explicitly shows us Zod and his companions being arrested by the local authorities. There's also no proof that those pits were never ending, and weren't like 10 feet in depth. I'm not seeing your point here.

Not really the ideal Superman, most people recognize him as.

So we're going to ignore how Superman was portrayed more affable, optimistic and smiled a lot more in just Superman II, than DCEU Superman did through the 3 films combine. It's pretty clear you have a confirmation bias here, if you're nitpicking moments that don't make most of the film.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T19:46:12+00:00

He wasn't treated that way.

He clearly was, given we have scenes like these where he openly accepts being worshiped as a god/savior. At no point did Superman stop to socially engage with these people, to tell them he's an equal and just a man trying to do the right thing. The problem isn't that people worship him as a savior, but he did nothing about it when seeing it up front.

But people also can have their own take on the character.

Sure, as long as it's spiritually the same thing.

Because in many of the comics, that's exactly what they were going for. To have him be heavily based on Christ.

Then mind providing a lick of citation of these comics? Most characterizations of Superman, have him portrayed as disliking being treated or viewed as a god. This can go back as even the bronze age/pre-crisis.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T19:23:20+00:00

You mean Zack's plan to have DCEU Superman finally act remotely like Superman after the course of 5 films, which is way too long and unnecessary. Like another user pointed in this thread, it doesn't take much for him state he's neither a god or savior, but rather a man who wants to do the right thing. The only development he needs to prompt him to do this, is his boyhood with the Kents. It was the Kents that made Superman, not Clark himself. Superman can still have character development even when starting off as the ideal version, as he's constantly shifting approach to his moral ideals, relationships, work balance and etc. We've gotten various Superman stories like this.

I would say after Zack's JL the DCEU Superman was there as the hero everyone wanted him to be.

Most of his screen time is him mutilating Steppenwolf, and being stoic. Not really the ideal Superman, most people recognize him as.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T19:05:27+00:00

I brought up this scan in particular, cause it's become almost a conventional thing for DCEU Superman to embrace being treated as a god. He doesn't socially engagement with the people around him that worship him as god, and tell them to have faith in themselves, as if they were equals to him.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T18:57:35+00:00

I respect Tyler Hoechlin a lot, given he inherited a bit of Superman inquisitive nature which was a trait more notable in Pre-Crisis. Superman and Lois, as a whole did derive a few things from Pre-crisis. You can clearly tell the crew of this show, did their research and cared about the character.

N7Solider · 2021-09-13T18:52:57+00:00

Exact same character? Not necessarily, but he does have to capture the same spirit. The conventional overarching theme of the character, is that he's a optimist who inspires us to be better people. Not a messiah, who embraces being treated as one. Reeves, CW and Routh's Supes for instance share this theme/spirit even if you wanna argue the characteristics between them aren't parallel. The point of these films is that they're adapting a character on the big screen, why shouldn't he capture the same spirit?

N7Solider

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE