Whether or not the Flash show took a hit because of the announcement is beside the point. Did they announce the entire cast of JLA or Suicide Squad already and we missed it? Again, this steals publicity thunder from the tv series. There is no "gain" in doing that. Even some of the tv show actors were slightly put off by the announcement. If you and a few others here want to continue to presume it was a wise decision and those it bothered have no ground to stand on, so be it. What exactly was gained by it? Nada. Again, I think it was a dumb decision, but I also think not sharing the same universe is kind of dumb and typical DC move.
Actually, other than the TV show (so far), I think Warner Bros and DC have been mishandling The Flash for years now. I've said my peace, and I think I'm done ranting about it.
I don't know how I feel about this announcement. I like it for the most part. I like the idea that DC has a plan and they have a schedule with movies that don't involve either Batman or Superman. I'm excited for it. I was also very excited for the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie. As of now, everything DC has planned has potential and so I decide to have faith in them.
The casting of Erza Miller as the theatrical Flash is odd to me. I just don't see him as The Flash. I don't see him as Barry Allen, Wally West, Jay Garrick or any other speedster. I've googled him and checked out some videos of his acting and to me, this makes as much sense as it did when it was rumored that Jack Black was going to play Hal Jordan. Maybe I'll be proven wrong but as they say in that Star Wars franchise a lot, "I got a bad feeling about this."
I guess in the long-run, we just have to wait and see. Maybe DC's way will work for them. I hope it does but right now, I just feel that they have a lot to prove when it comes to movies that don't star Superman or Batman because those are the movies that haven't done well for them in the past.
I don't know if you are purposely missing my question @David_D or unable to give a satisfying answer other than explaining why it's perfectly okay for Warner Bros to have a different actor. That isn't my point at all. The question remains. Why talk about it this month? Why not wait until the program's hype and hoopla had waned a bit or at least settled down? Why not wait until you have a director or a script in place? Why take any thunder from your tv properties at this crucial time where any Flash press ought to be covering the tv version, not some movie still many, many years away? Not a wise decision at all. Casting choices notwithstanding.
Because they knew that Marvel was continuing to pull big press and they wanted to get in front of the big Phase 3 announcement?
Because any publicity is better than no publicity?
Because no one at Warner took the time to climb your mountain and plead for you to grant them the wisdom necessary to do their job.
Last I checked, there have been no less than 4 secret identities behind the mask and at least three of them aren't the guy on the TV series. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at any press releases, but all I've seen is Ezra Miller is the Flash. Has it been announced by Warner that it IS Barry and not Wally/Jay/Bart? Do we know that they occur on the same Earth? We are seeing an awful lot of something that looks like a cosmic treadmill on the TV series.
I don't know how I feel about this announcement. I like it for the most part. I like the idea that DC has a plan and they have a schedule with movies that don't involve either Batman or Superman. I'm excited for it. I was also very excited for the Ryan Reynolds Green Lantern movie. As of now, everything DC has planned has potential and so I decide to have faith in them.
The casting of Erza Miller as the theatrical Flash is odd to me. I just don't see him as The Flash. I don't see him as Barry Allen, Wally West, Jay Garrick or any other speedster. I've googled him and checked out some videos of his acting and to me, this makes as much sense as it did when it was rumored that Jack Black was going to play Hal Jordan. Maybe I'll be proven wrong but as they say in that Star Wars franchise a lot, "I got a bad feeling about this."
I guess in the long-run, we just have to wait and see. Maybe DC's way will work for them. I hope it does but right now, I just feel that they have a lot to prove when it comes to movies that don't star Superman or Batman because those are the movies that haven't done well for them in the past.
Out of curiosity, what was your perspective of Grant Gustin as the Flash prior to seeing his episodes of Arrow and the first episode or two of the Flash? My initial thought was that he was wrong for the part (his filmography was what? Glee?). I still think that he seems way too young to be the primary CSI. Seems like any defense attorney worth anything would eat his lunch if he ever got called to the stand. That said, I've been having a blast with the show, though I'm hoping that the callouts aren't all just throwaways.
Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that everyone was freaking out about how terrible the costume looked and how it was going to suck. From here and now, all that angst seems like much ado about nothing.
Last I checked, there have been no less than 4 secret identities behind the mask and at least three of them aren't the guy on the TV series. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at any press releases, but all I've seen is Ezra Miller is the Flash. Has it been announced by Warner that it IS Barry and not Wally/Jay/Bart? Do we know that they occur on the same Earth?
I'm 99% sure that even DC doesn't know the answer to any of those questions because to them the wise maneuver is to rush to get useless publicity for a property that currently doesn't even exist yet. It wouldn't be worth waiting until their next movie's trailer has been released. Gotta do it right now.
I finally watched Iron Man 3 today (not good, maybe even worse than Iron Man 2) and that got me thinking about ALL the Marvel movies. I actually only think HALF of them so far are any good -- Iron Man 1, Cap 1 & 2, Avengers, GotG.
I actually loved Man of Steel, and I'm looking forward to most of the upcoming DC movies. If Marvel can get 50% of their movies right, I'm sure DC can, too. And if MoS is any indication, the DC Universe special effects will better than the Marvel Universe.
This could be fun to speculate about: Outside of New Gods/Darkseid, which was well covered in the cartoons, what DC concept could unite/weave through the movies towards the first/second parts of the Justice League movie? Marvel has the Infinity Stones. What could DC use to connect? Who would be their "Nick Fury" or "Agent Coulson"? Not that I want them to use the same formula, but what part of the DC Legends could be mined for a shared universe?
I don't know how many movies they get with Affleck, so for contract reasons this might not play out, but I wonder if Batman may be the sort of operator/ string puller of the Justice League in these films. It sounds like they are positioning him to be the most senior and experienced hero on the team. If that is true, it may be that he is the one drifting through the solo movies, moving around chess pieces. Encouraging and manipulating as needed. We'll see.
For villains. As unfair as this may be-- given that the Justice League has fought space invaders from the beginning; and given that Darkseid preceeds Thanos-- I think if the JL movie ends up being about a threat from space, or uses Darkseid, it may seem too much like Avengers and GOTG. Darkseid would be fun, but it may make sense to save him for later.
Personally, I would like to see a JL against a big group of supervillains organized by Luthor. DC has the best, and deepest, bench of great supervillians, so as the very idea of the Justice League is about abundance, then why not just go for it on the villain side as well. Given that a Suicide Squad movie comes before JL, I think it is safe to guess that this cinematic universe will have established the idea that a lot of costumed villains are popping up. It may be that the Batman introduced in Batman V Superman, if he is positioned as a longtime Batman, suggests he already has a rogues gallery. The Wonder Woman movie is likely to introduce at least one baddie, maybe several. So by the time they get to the JL movie, why not have an opposite league of villains (even if you don't end up ever saying any of the silly names out loud, like "The Legion of Doom" or "The Society of Super-Villains" or whatever.
Last I checked, there have been no less than 4 secret identities behind the mask and at least three of them aren't the guy on the TV series. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at any press releases, but all I've seen is Ezra Miller is the Flash. Has it been announced by Warner that it IS Barry and not Wally/Jay/Bart? Do we know that they occur on the same Earth?
I'm 99% sure that even DC doesn't know the answer to any of those questions because to them the wise maneuver is to rush to get useless publicity for a property that currently doesn't even exist yet. It wouldn't be worth waiting until their next movie's trailer has been released. Gotta do it right now.
DC = bush league
I'm done being "DC apologist".
It's a pretty big swing to go from being an 'apologist' to leading the village mob.
Marvel has done some really, really good stuff but it hasn't all been gold. I think that much of the frustration comes from the fact that Marvel managed to build a studio from the ground up and that success finally caused Warner to sit up and take notice of what they already have. The end result may be that Marvel had the opportunity to shape and mold their studio culture. DC is having an established culture injected into the mix.
Until each one comes out and fails to hit any of the beats that make me love these universes, I'm going to continue to vent my fan rage on something deserving - the abuse that was laid at the feet of the seminal military scifi classic Starship Troopers.
I finally watched Iron Man 3 today (not good, maybe even worse than Iron Man 2) and that got me thinking about ALL the Marvel movies. I actually only think HALF of them so far are any good -- Iron Man 1, Cap 1 & 2, Avengers, GotG.
I actually loved Man of Steel, and I'm looking forward to most of the upcoming DC movies. If Marvel can get 50% of their movies right, I'm sure DC can, too. And if MoS is any indication, the DC Universe special effects will better than the Marvel Universe.
I agree about half being good, but I have to disagree about Iron Man 3. I know it's the divisive movie in the MCU roster, but it's probably my favorite, or second favorite depending on my mood. However I will say I also think every Marvel movie so far has been better than MoS, though Thor and IM 2 are closer on that scale.
I finally watched Iron Man 3 today (not good, maybe even worse than Iron Man 2) and that got me thinking about ALL the Marvel movies. I actually only think HALF of them so far are any good -- Iron Man 1, Cap 1 & 2, Avengers, GotG.
I actually loved Man of Steel, and I'm looking forward to most of the upcoming DC movies. If Marvel can get 50% of their movies right, I'm sure DC can, too. And if MoS is any indication, the DC Universe special effects will better than the Marvel Universe.
I agree about half being good, but I have to disagree about Iron Man 3. I know it's the divisive movie in the MCU roster, but it's probably my favorite, or second favorite depending on my mood. However I will say I also think every Marvel movie so far has been better than MoS, though Thor and IM 2 are closer on that scale.
I enjoy IM3 as well. I think it takes heat mostly about less Iron Man (with too much Stark) & the Mandarin outcome. I like both because they fit the story being told.
Out of curiosity, what was your perspective of Grant Gustin as the Flash prior to seeing his episodes of Arrow and the first episode or two of the Flash? My initial thought was that he was wrong for the part (his filmography was what? Glee?). I still think that he seems way too young to be the primary CSI. Seems like any defense attorney worth anything would eat his lunch if he ever got called to the stand. That said, I've been having a blast with the show, though I'm hoping that the callouts aren't all just throwaways.
Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that everyone was freaking out about how terrible the costume looked and how it was going to suck. From here and now, all that angst seems like much ado about nothing.
I don't watch Glee. I googled him and saw a few clips. I'm not sure how I felt at first. He looked clean cut and a bit nerdy. Other than the darker hair, he seemed okay. I never had a problem with the Flash costume. I liked it. I do agree about him looking too young and it would have been better had they made the CSI a team where the lead was someone other than Barry. It's not 100% terrible and it adds the occasional moment of comedy.
Now in my opinion, I think Grant would have made a pretty good Peter Parker and I think the guy who plays Eddie Thawne would have made a pretty decent Barry Allen but I think the casting of the show was pretty well done. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. It's not the first time where there has been a casting announcement where the initial reaction was "What the hell were they thinking?" Right now, Erza Miller lands squarely in that category until I see more. I just don't get the casting.
1) Neither DC nor Marvel is out to seduce us (us = the old-school comic reader who know chapter and verse of every character). They have us. Like the devil has a sinner's soul, they're not out to do anything to please us. They want the new blood. I have no problem with this...as stated, they already have me.
2) Until I actually hear something about the Flash movie, I reserve the right to not have an opinion one way or the other about it. My fingers are crossed it'll be Wally West or Jay Garrick and we're laying the foundation for a "Flash of Two Worlds" crossover sometime down the road.
3) Loving every minute of the Flash. Loving every minute of Gotham. It's a wonderful time to be a comic book nerd, even with my admission of #1, above.
Out of curiosity, what was your perspective of Grant Gustin as the Flash prior to seeing his episodes of Arrow and the first episode or two of the Flash? My initial thought was that he was wrong for the part (his filmography was what? Glee?). I still think that he seems way too young to be the primary CSI. Seems like any defense attorney worth anything would eat his lunch if he ever got called to the stand. That said, I've been having a blast with the show, though I'm hoping that the callouts aren't all just throwaways.
Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that everyone was freaking out about how terrible the costume looked and how it was going to suck. From here and now, all that angst seems like much ado about nothing.
I don't watch Glee. I googled him and saw a few clips. I'm not sure how I felt at first. He looked clean cut and a bit nerdy. Other than the darker hair, he seemed okay. I never had a problem with the Flash costume. I liked it. I do agree about him looking too young and it would have been better had they made the CSI a team where the lead was someone other than Barry. It's not 100% terrible and it adds the occasional moment of comedy.
Now in my opinion, I think Grant would have made a pretty good Peter Parker and I think the guy who plays Eddie Thawne would have made a pretty decent Barry Allen but I think the casting of the show was pretty well done. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. It's not the first time where there has been a casting announcement where the initial reaction was "What the hell were they thinking?" Right now, Erza Miller lands squarely in that category until I see more. I just don't get the casting.
I don't know enough about his filmography to judge. It felt light to me. My point was that I had some reservations but didn't immediately rush to break out the torches and pitchforks.
Agreed could be a great Peter Parker.
Since I have no idea what the plan on doing with Miller, I'm assuming that they've got a plan. It may not seem solid right now but I'll give them the benefit.
It's hard on the initial casting because he just looks so far from what I envisioned. I don't even mind the fact that there will be a movie Flash and a television Flash because the two departments never mix and matched to begin with but I had always though that it was because of the movies that Batman never appeared in Smallville and why they even brought in Green Arrow as sort of a replacement for Bruce Wayne.
Like I said, maybe I'll be proven wrong but I have not been so impressed with the DC stuff that has come out lately when it comes to the cinematic universe. The television stuff has been better but maybe when I see more, I'll get more excited.
I had heard that, and Argo was exceptional, but he does have a thin resume. Again, I'm being cynical here. Just not very hopeful I suppose.
@Matt, remind me again why it's "Kent" for you and not "Kal"?
Is this a set up? I just got asked this exact same question on another forum yesterday. Even down to the "Kal" suggestion. Luckily, I can cut & paste.
... As to Kent, you are correct Kal-El is his Kryptonian birth name. It reminds me of my older (half) sister. She told our father he's the only father she's ever really known. It's why she calls him dad rather then her actual father.
Same with Kal-El/Kent. The Kents have really only been the life, name, & parents he's really known.
Plus, its kind of a reminder I don't really see him as being that super.
M
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
I had heard that, and Argo was exceptional, but he does have a thin resume. Again, I'm being cynical here. Just not very hopeful I suppose.
@Matt, remind me again why it's "Kent" for you and not "Kal"?
Is this a set up? I just got asked this exact same question on another forum yesterday. Even down to the "Kal" suggestion. Luckily, I can cut & paste.
... As to Kent, you are correct Kal-El is his Kryptonian birth name. It reminds me of my older (half) sister. She told our father he's the only father she's ever really known. It's why she calls him dad rather then her actual father.
Same with Kal-El/Kent. The Kents have really only been the life, name, & parents he's really known.
Plus, its kind of a reminder I don't really see him as being that super.
M
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I had heard that, and Argo was exceptional, but he does have a thin resume. Again, I'm being cynical here. Just not very hopeful I suppose.
@Matt, remind me again why it's "Kent" for you and not "Kal"?
Is this a set up? I just got asked this exact same question on another forum yesterday. Even down to the "Kal" suggestion. Luckily, I can cut & paste.
... As to Kent, you are correct Kal-El is his Kryptonian birth name. It reminds me of my older (half) sister. She told our father he's the only father she's ever really known. It's why she calls him dad rather then her actual father.
Same with Kal-El/Kent. The Kents have really only been the life, name, & parents he's really known.
Plus, its kind of a reminder I don't really see him as being that super.
M
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
Well, a "better one" for you. The fact Kent did not give himself the name "Superman" illustrated to me that he's Kent regardless; it is just that others have given and used the moniker of "superman". In the end, Clark Kent is who he sees himself as, not a "super man".
Clark Kent as the disguise doesn't work for me. There's no reason for it. He could just be Superman all the time if that was who he really was. Just kill Kent off in a plane crash or one of the numerous calamities that are constantly befalling Metropolis and the world at large. It's not like he'd be alone. He belongs to a huge transplanetary community of metahumans. And it's not like being Clark Kent has ever protected his loved ones from harm's way... He often has public relationships with people both as Clark and Superman, that have been exploited. And I'm sure Superman would have no obstacles in becoming a best-selling writer. The only way Clark Kent works is if he wants to be Clark because he is Clark and he does not want to be Superman all the time. And why wouldn't he want to be Superman all the time? Because that's not the real him. It's the role he feels he needs to fill.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents (whoops, New 52 again, so they're dead), as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
Clark Kent as the disguise doesn't work for me. There's no reason for it. He could just be Superman all the time if that was who he really was. Just kill Kent off in a plane crash or one of the numerous calamities that are constantly befalling Metropolis and the world at large. It's not like he'd be alone. He belongs to a huge transplanetary community of metahumans. And it's not like being Clark Kent has ever protected his loved ones from harm's way... He often has public relationships with people both as Clark and Superman, that have been exploited. And I'm sure Superman would have no obstacles in becoming a best-selling writer. The only way Clark Kent works is if he wants to be Clark because he is Clark and he does not want to be Superman all the time. And why wouldn't he want to be Superman all the time? Because that's not the real him. It's the role he feels he needs to fill.
I have had that question, too.
And I don't know if it has ever been written this way in the past, as I don't read much Superman. But I do think that a way you could justify his keeping the Clark Kent identity a real person in the world. Keeping that identity alive, and putting time into the human-scale life of Clark Kent, is as a tribute to the humans that raised him. I know this is a strange way to put it, but to kill off the Clark Kent identity would be to kill off their son. (Even though they would likely be in on the secret that only the identity is dead, and not the "man" himself). But then the Kents would have to keep that secret alongside the secret that their adopted son is actually the powerful alien. And that would mean that any time Superman spends with them would have to be done secretly. Or could only be done as Superman, which would put them at risk. If, say, one of the Kents passed away, there would be no Clark Kent to give a eulogy, because Clark Kent is "dead".
**Of course, I just had to stop and remember that, current comics-wise, in the New 52, they killed off both of the Kents. Which in my opinion was a really bad choice, and throws away the relationship that makes the Superman character most relatable and accessible (other than in flashbacks).
So, yes, in a New 52 version where the Kents have both passed, I think before he even becomes Superman, then keeping the Clark Kent persona around is a much harder sell.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents (whoops, New 52 again, so they're dead), as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
I've read and enjoyed many of those old stories as well. Funny thing though. They're still there ready to be read and enjoyed again. They also, never really left, apparently. Saw an article earlier today about the DC event next year - Convergence which revisits many of those old stories and explains the how and the why.
In all honesty, yeah I'm not a fan of the constant pot stirring. The only thing left of the horse is a cleanly flensed skeleton.
As I said previously, the spectrum from fan to 'apologist' to angry villager is, in my mind pretty broad. More to the point, as someone that has also been a fan for decades, and worse still I've been a Legion fan for decades, I'm taking a slightly longer view of it. Some, possibly even the majority of it is currently sub-par. That's almost always cyclical and will swing back around to something enjoyable eventually.
For example, I gave up on Marvel when it became the Bendis-verse (and stayed away because of the price hike and the gratuitous double-shipping) but I still happily dig out old arcs and titles to enjoy. While I doubt that the price will ever come back down, maybe, eventually the double shipping thing will stop being a thing and I'll consider looking at new stuff again.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
I think it all depends on how you look at Clark Kent. Bumbling, meek country-boy human, that is a disguise. But I'd argue that isn't even the real Clark Kent. Kent was a person born with powers who grew up as Clark aware of his differences. The people he has had honest relationships with, like pre-nu52 Lois or Batman call him Clark and respond to him as Clark, not Superman, but they don't look at him like he's that clumsy naive rube. The person they see is the Real Clark, the one who is good enough to be Superman. Its a thin line of separation because putting on the costume doesn't really change who he is, but I think that the real Clark Kent is just a man who is good enough to be and able to be Superman and that Superman is an invention so that he can accomplish the things he has the ability to do.
In short:
Bumbling Clark Kent = disguise
Clark Kent = superpowered alien Kansas farmboy. (Kal-el is also an acceptable answer)
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore.
To be fair, though, if what you care about is whether or not those Moore stories are canon, then that isn't the New 52's fault. You could say it was Crisis and John Byrne's Man of Steel.
Remember, those Moore stories were meant to be a tribute to an era that had already passed. Heck, "Whatever Happened...", is basically a funeral for Silver Age Superman.
So those stories, while great and historic in the publishing history of the character (and always there to be re-read, as DC has reprinted them a number of times and kept them in print) haven't actually had a place in DCU canon or the character's fictional history for almost 30 years now. And both are barely-in-continuity sorts of stories to begin with. They are both basically "What If?s".
I get that you don't like the New 52, and I would not tell you that you should like it. But pushing these specific stories out of canon was old news decades before the New 52 was a thing.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents (whoops, New 52 again, so they're dead), as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
I've read and enjoyed many of those old stories as well. Funny thing though. They're still there ready to be read and enjoyed again. They also, never really left, apparently. Saw an article earlier today about the DC event next year - Convergence which revisits many of those old stories and explains the how and the why.
In all honesty, yeah I'm not a fan of the constant pot stirring. The only thing left of the horse is a cleanly flensed skeleton.
As I said previously, the spectrum from fan to 'apologist' to angry villager is, in my mind pretty broad. More to the point, as someone that has also been a fan for decades, and worse still I've been a Legion fan for decades, I'm taking a slightly longer view of it. Some, possibly even the majority of it is currently sub-par. That's almost always cyclical and will swing back around to something enjoyable eventually.
For example, I gave up on Marvel when it became the Bendis-verse (and stayed away because of the price hike and the gratuitous double-shipping) but I still happily dig out old arcs and titles to enjoy. While I doubt that the price will ever come back down, maybe, eventually the double shipping thing will stop being a thing and I'll consider looking at new stuff again.
This is a digression, but if you want to read Marvel, but cover price and shipping frequency are barriers for entry, I would definitely recommend you give Marvel Unlimited a try (if you haven't already). You can do a LOT of reading at that all-you-can-eat price. I never imagined myself reading comics digitally... until I could read huge amounts of material (from backlist classics, to many things that came out six months ago) for less than the cover price cost of two books a month. I wish DC had a comparable service.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents (whoops, New 52 again, so they're dead), as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
I've read and enjoyed many of those old stories as well. Funny thing though. They're still there ready to be read and enjoyed again. They also, never really left, apparently. Saw an article earlier today about the DC event next year - Convergence which revisits many of those old stories and explains the how and the why.
In all honesty, yeah I'm not a fan of the constant pot stirring. The only thing left of the horse is a cleanly flensed skeleton.
As I said previously, the spectrum from fan to 'apologist' to angry villager is, in my mind pretty broad. More to the point, as someone that has also been a fan for decades, and worse still I've been a Legion fan for decades, I'm taking a slightly longer view of it. Some, possibly even the majority of it is currently sub-par. That's almost always cyclical and will swing back around to something enjoyable eventually.
For example, I gave up on Marvel when it became the Bendis-verse (and stayed away because of the price hike and the gratuitous double-shipping) but I still happily dig out old arcs and titles to enjoy. While I doubt that the price will ever come back down, maybe, eventually the double shipping thing will stop being a thing and I'll consider looking at new stuff again.
This is a digression, but if you want to read Marvel, but cover price and shipping frequency are barriers for entry, I would definitely recommend you give Marvel Unlimited a try (if you haven't already). You can do a LOT of reading at that all-you-can-eat price. I never imagined myself reading comics digitally... until I could read huge amounts of material (from backlist classics, to many things that came out six months ago) for less than the cover price cost of two books a month.
I've contemplated doing that. Certainly, I don't feel any need to go anywhere near to current but I wouldn't mind digging into stuff like Annihilation and other, older stuff that I've missed. My biggest concerns are the ongoing cost and the constant struggle for the family tablet.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents (whoops, New 52 again, so they're dead), as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
I've read and enjoyed many of those old stories as well. Funny thing though. They're still there ready to be read and enjoyed again. They also, never really left, apparently. Saw an article earlier today about the DC event next year - Convergence which revisits many of those old stories and explains the how and the why.
In all honesty, yeah I'm not a fan of the constant pot stirring. The only thing left of the horse is a cleanly flensed skeleton.
As I said previously, the spectrum from fan to 'apologist' to angry villager is, in my mind pretty broad. More to the point, as someone that has also been a fan for decades, and worse still I've been a Legion fan for decades, I'm taking a slightly longer view of it. Some, possibly even the majority of it is currently sub-par. That's almost always cyclical and will swing back around to something enjoyable eventually.
For example, I gave up on Marvel when it became the Bendis-verse (and stayed away because of the price hike and the gratuitous double-shipping) but I still happily dig out old arcs and titles to enjoy. While I doubt that the price will ever come back down, maybe, eventually the double shipping thing will stop being a thing and I'll consider looking at new stuff again.
This is a digression, but if you want to read Marvel, but cover price and shipping frequency are barriers for entry, I would definitely recommend you give Marvel Unlimited a try (if you haven't already). You can do a LOT of reading at that all-you-can-eat price. I never imagined myself reading comics digitally... until I could read huge amounts of material (from backlist classics, to many things that came out six months ago) for less than the cover price cost of two books a month.
I've contemplated doing that. Certainly, I don't feel any need to go anywhere near to current but I wouldn't mind digging into stuff like Annihilation and other, older stuff that I've missed. My biggest concerns are the ongoing cost and the constant struggle for the family tablet.
If you go with the monthly subscription and read just 4 maybe 5 issues in a month that you would have bought to read its already a bargain. Even more so if you get the yearly subscription.
Something dawned on me today while reading "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (if you have never read this story, and you love the new 52, you may want to skip it).
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the bumbling disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
That is one seriously elitist statement.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
I missed the Tarantino bit, but Ive noticed you don't really care for many of my comments about DC. One reason for my dismissal of the New 52 is because I love those old Alan Moore stories that call back to silver age stories, such as For The Man Who Has Everything (Superman Annual #11, 1985) or Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow? (1986). Without that rich back history, those sorts of fun and historic stories no longer have any meaning (or much), or even a place in DC canon anymore. I was a huge DC fan for decades, but have recently concluded that the distinguished competition isn't for me anymore - because they don't care about what I used to love about them. Projects like The Multiversity may change that, but I doubt it. If that makes me elitist to you, so be it. We are allowed to have varying opinions in this hobby. That's what makes it interesting. Varying tastes, with a healthy dose of hyperbole.
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
I think it all depends on how you look at Clark Kent. Bumbling, meek country-boy human, that is a disguise. But I'd argue that isn't even the real Clark Kent. Kent was a person born with powers who grew up as Clark aware of his differences. The people he has had honest relationships with, like pre-nu52 Lois or Batman call him Clark and respond to him as Clark, not Superman, but they don't look at him like he's that clumsy naive rube. The person they see is the Real Clark, the one who is good enough to be Superman. Its a thin line of separation because putting on the costume doesn't really change who he is, but I think that the real Clark Kent is just a man who is good enough to be and able to be Superman and that Superman is an invention so that he can accomplish the things he has the ability to do.
In short:
Bumbling Clark Kent = disguise
Clark Kent = superpowered alien Kansas farmboy. (Kal-el is also an acceptable answer)
Superman = pseudonym/stage name
What this all goes back to was calling him Kent or Kal (by other characters, not necessarily us, the readers), right?
And if that's the case, then they call him Kent because of the second option. That's how I reason it in my head at least.
To be fair, though, if what you care about is whether or not those Moore stories are canon, then that isn't the New 52's fault. You could say it was Crisis and John Byrne's Man of Steel.
Remember, those Moore stories were meant to be a tribute to an era that had already passed. Heck, "Whatever Happened...", is basically a funeral for Silver Age Superman.
So those stories, while great and historic in the publishing history of the character (and always there to be re-read, as DC has reprinted them a number of times and kept them in print) haven't actually had a place in DCU canon or the character's fictional history for almost 30 years now. And both are barely-in-continuity sorts of stories to begin with. They are both basically "What If?s".
I get that you don't like the New 52, and I would not tell you that you should like it. But pushing these specific stories out of canon was old news decades before the New 52 was a thing.
@David_D my point wasn't necessarily that those stories are no longer in canon. And sure, I can re-read them anytime. It was the point of those stories. Without the rich silver-age history to call back to in those two particular stories by Moore, there would have been no stories. You see, in the simplest terms, DC can no longer make those kinds of stories that call back to stories of long ago (such as Superman dreaming about being married to Lyla Lerrol, a character who had first appeared in issue #141 of Superman, published 25 years prior!) which is something the New 52 will probably never do.
I get that things come and go from continuity, I'm merely saying that since the New 52 has forgone all prior continuity, I don't expect to get those kinds of neat stories and tales such as those referenced examples. There is no history anymore. There will be no fun or clever call-backs to prior stories. There is only the New 52. This is why I suggested perhaps the Multiversity might remedy that to some degree, but I am not confident it will. That's probably not even the point. And while I'm sure there are good stories being told, they just aren't for me anymore. I've become cynical and a curmudgeon towards all things New 52. Re-reading a few Alan Moore stories only served to remind me of but one more reason why.
Comments
#perspectiveofglass
M
The casting of Erza Miller as the theatrical Flash is odd to me. I just don't see him as The Flash. I don't see him as Barry Allen, Wally West, Jay Garrick or any other speedster. I've googled him and checked out some videos of his acting and to me, this makes as much sense as it did when it was rumored that Jack Black was going to play Hal Jordan. Maybe I'll be proven wrong but as they say in that Star Wars franchise a lot, "I got a bad feeling about this."
I guess in the long-run, we just have to wait and see. Maybe DC's way will work for them. I hope it does but right now, I just feel that they have a lot to prove when it comes to movies that don't star Superman or Batman because those are the movies that haven't done well for them in the past.
Because any publicity is better than no publicity?
Because no one at Warner took the time to climb your mountain and plead for you to grant them the wisdom necessary to do their job.
Last I checked, there have been no less than 4 secret identities behind the mask and at least three of them aren't the guy on the TV series. Now, admittedly, I haven't looked at any press releases, but all I've seen is Ezra Miller is the Flash. Has it been announced by Warner that it IS Barry and not Wally/Jay/Bart? Do we know that they occur on the same Earth? We are seeing an awful lot of something that looks like a cosmic treadmill on the TV series.
Heck, it wasn't all that long ago that everyone was freaking out about how terrible the costume looked and how it was going to suck. From here and now, all that angst seems like much ado about nothing.
DC = bush league
I'm done being "DC apologist".
I actually loved Man of Steel, and I'm looking forward to most of the upcoming DC movies. If Marvel can get 50% of their movies right, I'm sure DC can, too. And if MoS is any indication, the DC Universe special effects will better than the Marvel Universe.
For villains. As unfair as this may be-- given that the Justice League has fought space invaders from the beginning; and given that Darkseid preceeds Thanos-- I think if the JL movie ends up being about a threat from space, or uses Darkseid, it may seem too much like Avengers and GOTG. Darkseid would be fun, but it may make sense to save him for later.
Personally, I would like to see a JL against a big group of supervillains organized by Luthor. DC has the best, and deepest, bench of great supervillians, so as the very idea of the Justice League is about abundance, then why not just go for it on the villain side as well. Given that a Suicide Squad movie comes before JL, I think it is safe to guess that this cinematic universe will have established the idea that a lot of costumed villains are popping up. It may be that the Batman introduced in Batman V Superman, if he is positioned as a longtime Batman, suggests he already has a rogues gallery. The Wonder Woman movie is likely to introduce at least one baddie, maybe several. So by the time they get to the JL movie, why not have an opposite league of villains (even if you don't end up ever saying any of the silly names out loud, like "The Legion of Doom" or "The Society of Super-Villains" or whatever.
Marvel has done some really, really good stuff but it hasn't all been gold. I think that much of the frustration comes from the fact that Marvel managed to build a studio from the ground up and that success finally caused Warner to sit up and take notice of what they already have. The end result may be that Marvel had the opportunity to shape and mold their studio culture. DC is having an established culture injected into the mix.
Until each one comes out and fails to hit any of the beats that make me love these universes, I'm going to continue to vent my fan rage on something deserving - the abuse that was laid at the feet of the seminal military scifi classic Starship Troopers.
M
Now in my opinion, I think Grant would have made a pretty good Peter Parker and I think the guy who plays Eddie Thawne would have made a pretty decent Barry Allen but I think the casting of the show was pretty well done. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. It's not the first time where there has been a casting announcement where the initial reaction was "What the hell were they thinking?" Right now, Erza Miller lands squarely in that category until I see more. I just don't get the casting.
1) Neither DC nor Marvel is out to seduce us (us = the old-school comic reader who know chapter and verse of every character). They have us. Like the devil has a sinner's soul, they're not out to do anything to please us. They want the new blood. I have no problem with this...as stated, they already have me.
2) Until I actually hear something about the Flash movie, I reserve the right to not have an opinion one way or the other about it. My fingers are crossed it'll be Wally West or Jay Garrick and we're laying the foundation for a "Flash of Two Worlds" crossover sometime down the road.
3) Loving every minute of the Flash. Loving every minute of Gotham. It's a wonderful time to be a comic book nerd, even with my admission of #1, above.
Now in my opinion, I think Grant would have made a pretty good Peter Parker and I think the guy who plays Eddie Thawne would have made a pretty decent Barry Allen but I think the casting of the show was pretty well done. Maybe I'll be proven wrong. It's not the first time where there has been a casting announcement where the initial reaction was "What the hell were they thinking?" Right now, Erza Miller lands squarely in that category until I see more. I just don't get the casting.
I don't know enough about his filmography to judge. It felt light to me. My point was that I had some reservations but didn't immediately rush to break out the torches and pitchforks.
Agreed could be a great Peter Parker.
Since I have no idea what the plan on doing with Miller, I'm assuming that they've got a plan. It may not seem solid right now but I'll give them the benefit.
Like I said, maybe I'll be proven wrong but I have not been so impressed with the DC stuff that has come out lately when it comes to the cinematic universe. The television stuff has been better but maybe when I see more, I'll get more excited.
Superman is the persona with no disguise. No glasses, no cowl, no mask. It is Kal-El being who he is without any restraint and not hiding his face from the world. Therefore, in that light, I can see calling him Kent, when referring to his disguise, just as I call Bruce "Batman" or "Dark Knight" because he is hiding his face, that natural, genetic self that he has to hide so no one finds out who he is. Batman may be who he really is, but then again, Bruce Wayne is a scarred and severely damaged individual due to his circumstances that he has overcome.
Clark Kent however is quite the opposite. He grew up knowing he was different, and wound up being told to use the disguise of a false persona to cover up who he really is. I don't agree with your reasons for referring to him as Kent. Not that I think you're wrong, you just have your own reasons. A better one is that Kent is the disguise he wears when he isn't being himself.
Just an observation.
Also, Quentin Tarentino, via 'Bill' made this observation years ago.
M
@Matt, I still see the glasses and the bumbling persona as a disguise. The fact that he has real relationships with Lois and his cousin and his dog and his parents (whoops, New 52 again, so they're dead), as a superman/alien with no disguise and no need to hide his powers leads me to see Kent as merely the disguise. I see Kent as a disguise to protect his identity @playdohsrepublic but your point is valid.
And I don't know if it has ever been written this way in the past, as I don't read much Superman. But I do think that a way you could justify his keeping the Clark Kent identity a real person in the world. Keeping that identity alive, and putting time into the human-scale life of Clark Kent, is as a tribute to the humans that raised him. I know this is a strange way to put it, but to kill off the Clark Kent identity would be to kill off their son. (Even though they would likely be in on the secret that only the identity is dead, and not the "man" himself). But then the Kents would have to keep that secret alongside the secret that their adopted son is actually the powerful alien. And that would mean that any time Superman spends with them would have to be done secretly. Or could only be done as Superman, which would put them at risk. If, say, one of the Kents passed away, there would be no Clark Kent to give a eulogy, because Clark Kent is "dead".
**Of course, I just had to stop and remember that, current comics-wise, in the New 52, they killed off both of the Kents. Which in my opinion was a really bad choice, and throws away the relationship that makes the Superman character most relatable and accessible (other than in flashbacks).
So, yes, in a New 52 version where the Kents have both passed, I think before he even becomes Superman, then keeping the Clark Kent persona around is a much harder sell.
In all honesty, yeah I'm not a fan of the constant pot stirring. The only thing left of the horse is a cleanly flensed skeleton.
As I said previously, the spectrum from fan to 'apologist' to angry villager is, in my mind pretty broad. More to the point, as someone that has also been a fan for decades, and worse still I've been a Legion fan for decades, I'm taking a slightly longer view of it. Some, possibly even the majority of it is currently sub-par. That's almost always cyclical and will swing back around to something enjoyable eventually.
For example, I gave up on Marvel when it became the Bendis-verse (and stayed away because of the price hike and the gratuitous double-shipping) but I still happily dig out old arcs and titles to enjoy. While I doubt that the price will ever come back down, maybe, eventually the double shipping thing will stop being a thing and I'll consider looking at new stuff again.
In short:
Bumbling Clark Kent = disguise
Clark Kent = superpowered alien Kansas farmboy. (Kal-el is also an acceptable answer)
Superman = pseudonym/stage name
:D
Remember, those Moore stories were meant to be a tribute to an era that had already passed. Heck, "Whatever Happened...", is basically a funeral for Silver Age Superman.
So those stories, while great and historic in the publishing history of the character (and always there to be re-read, as DC has reprinted them a number of times and kept them in print) haven't actually had a place in DCU canon or the character's fictional history for almost 30 years now. And both are barely-in-continuity sorts of stories to begin with. They are both basically "What If?s".
I get that you don't like the New 52, and I would not tell you that you should like it. But pushing these specific stories out of canon was old news decades before the New 52 was a thing.
And if that's the case, then they call him Kent because of the second option. That's how I reason it in my head at least.
I get that things come and go from continuity, I'm merely saying that since the New 52 has forgone all prior continuity, I don't expect to get those kinds of neat stories and tales such as those referenced examples. There is no history anymore. There will be no fun or clever call-backs to prior stories. There is only the New 52. This is why I suggested perhaps the Multiversity might remedy that to some degree, but I am not confident it will. That's probably not even the point. And while I'm sure there are good stories being told, they just aren't for me anymore. I've become cynical and a curmudgeon towards all things New 52. Re-reading a few Alan Moore stories only served to remind me of but one more reason why.