Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So...Clark Kent is the disguise and he's always been the Blur...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    i kinda liked the speech. personally, i've always thought of it as the other way around, Superman persona as the disguise. At the same time, I'm not upset about how SV handled it. They've always kind of had they're own explanation for things. Besides, I hardly doubt he's going to think of Clark Kent as a complete disguise; i think it was merely used for the sake of an explanation speech. I agree with the idea of 3 persona's.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Theshadow129x
      My thoughts exactly. they pretty much got rid of the modern world that they had created just to revert back to the pre-crisis dc universe. its horrible and to be honest i hate bumbling Clark. Dean Cain's Clark Kent proved you can have a great Superman and Clark Kent while not dumbing down either of them.
      I can't stand bumbling Clark. I find him intolerable in the films - which tends to make Christoper Reeve fans angry when I says so, but there it is.

      But then again, as I said, I don't like Superman just being dismissed as something "Clark can do" or anything like that either. Which may be one reason (among many) why I never cared for Dean Cain's Superman.

      Reducing either side to something less-than-real just ends up making me not care very much about that side of Clark/Superman, which is something I've recently realized. Which is why I've always tended to favor the more complex takes - both side being real parts of the whole man; or the three-tire idea of their being a "public" Clark Kent, a "private" Clark/Superman and a "public" Superman/hero.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Faby
        Oh this is bad. I am so disappointed. Both Clark Kent & his Blur side are parts of who he is. Gee, Joe-El must be very happy that he has been Kal-El all along. *rolls eyes*
        Total disrespect to Clark Kent

        Comment


        • #64
          Clark is not trying to make one a disguise and one not he is trying to change how people perceive him they are equally important.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by ~*Lois & Clark Fan*~
            I hate it, utterly hate it with a burning passion. One sentence he said he wants to stay true to his parents, then in the next he contradicts himself. UGH
            YEAH THIS PISSED ME OFF SERIOUSLY REALLY PISSED ME OFF SO CLARK DOES NOT KNOW WHO HE IS HAS BEEN OR WILL BE IS WHAT I GOT FROM IT

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by LoD
              I thought it played well with what Martha told him last episode about always being her son, etc.

              Being adopted, Clark's identity is already more fluid, IMO. He is Clark Kent but he is also Kal-El. And now he is the Blur and soon he will be Superman. People call him different names but who he is remains the same. It is perfect symbolism for a man of principles -- someone whose moral center remains unswayed by situational ethics.

              I didn't see him rejecting the Kents or his humanity in that scene. I saw him realizing that his core, that who he is, exists no matter what name he goes by. I didn't see him choosing one side or splitting himself in two. He was transcendent in that moment and I liked it.
              ITA. I liked it too.

              Comment


              • #67
                In a show all about Clark Kent, I would have liked to have seen Superman be the disguise even though Clark Kent has been portrayed as the disguise in many Superman works. Or there could be a better line drawn where they are both halves of him. I don't like Clark being the disguise.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ginevrakent
                  I haven't fully digested this yet, but I kind of got the impression that even though Clark was saying that "Clark Kent" was the disguise, I think it was implied with all the "Mr. Kents" in this episode that it's really "Mr. Kent" that's the true disguise.

                  Clark Kent is the guy that we've been watching on the farm, with his friends, etc. Superman is when he gets to truly be himself by exhibiting all that he is and can do. But Mr. Kent is the reporter with the glasses who protects both Superman and Clark Kent.

                  This says it all.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by morrigan01
                    I can't stand bumbling Clark. I find him intolerable in the films - which tends to make Christoper Reeve fans angry when I says so, but there it is.
                    I am also not a big fan of the Reeve movies, but people like them; I just try to not make that big of a deal about it. Unfortunately, the Reeve interpretation of Superman was faithful to who Superman was at the time (pre-Crisis Superman).

                    I've always felt that after the John Byrne Man of Steel miniseries, we should never revisit the pre-Crisis Superman, but as someone else posted here tonight, Geoff Johns brought it back, and he writes for the show, so. . .

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by denizenzero
                      I am also not a big fan of the Reeve movies, but people like them; I just try to not make that big of a deal about it. Unfortunately, the Reeve interpretation of Superman was faithful to who Superman was at the time (pre-Crisis Superman).

                      I've always felt that after the John Byrne Man of Steel miniseries, we should never revisit the pre-Crisis Superman, but as someone else posted here tonight, Geoff Johns brought it back, and he writes for the show, so. . .
                      Even before Johns writers were restoring elements of the silver age.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Clark Kent being the disguise is the way it should be, Superman is who he is. That has always been the case from my point of view.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by AlexfromLubbock
                          Even before Johns writers were restoring elements of the silver age.
                          And I've been away from the comics for years, but it seems like it's the easy way to curry favor with people; throw in some old school stuff, some Reeve stuff, and bam, you don't have to work too hard to make a new Superman story.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            well from what they were going with it seems they are going the approach that the real clark is the hero he has always been. And clark is just his name/and the mask. Personally that take is good and has some valid points. Though for me i personally like the approach that clark is who he really is and his hero identity is just what he does. But the other way does work so far for sv. I hope it works out good and they dont do to much bumbling clark stuff. i dont want to see to much of that.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by denizenzero
                              I am also not a big fan of the Reeve movies, but people like them; I just try to not make that big of a deal about it. Unfortunately, the Reeve interpretation of Superman was faithful to who Superman was at the time (pre-Crisis Superman).
                              Well, actually, according to some PMs I've had with someone who was around during the time the Reeve movies were made/came out, what was going on in the comics with Clark/Superman and his identity at that time (which was the Bronze Age) actually wasn't accurate to what the movies did. The identity thing was actually becoming more complex, with Clark Kent becoming less and less than just a disguise. The movies were very much of the age before - the Silver Age - to the new age the comics had move into at that point.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by morrigan01
                                Well, actually, according to some PMs I've had with someone who was around during the time the Reeve movies were made/came out, what was going on in the comics with Clark/Superman and his identity at that time (which was the Bronze Age) actually wasn't accurate to what the movies did. The identity thing was actually becoming more complex, with Clark Kent becoming less and less than just a disguise. The movies were very much of the age before - the Silver Age - to the new age the comics had move into at that point.
                                Thanks for clearing that up. As much as I love Superman and comics, I'm not nearly as familiar with them as I want to be. I also get confused on the timelines between the various Ages.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎