Bring back the REAL Superman!

Hi Dan, nice article! I'm not really a Superman fan, but I can understand where you're coming from. Not sure about him needing these godly powers (even in his weak version he seems pretty powerful to me), but I agree about your problems with the casting.

Hmmmm..... I agree and disagree. Superman is godly, and deserves movies that portray him as such. The picture you provided (clint walker)Is the perfect figure for a reboot. A back to roots look with a little nostalgia. However, I do not want a boyscout, emo, light hearted superman. Clark Kent.... maybe a little on the boyscout, and light hearted side. I want a stern, no nonsence, a tad angry (just a little), power house, not affraid to kick some ass superman. Superman was never affraid of a fight, however reluctant he was to start one, he almost loved to finish one. I think this gives him some well deserved cockyness.

Now THAT is a mans man! Even the name screams "I am MAN at his most MAN!"

I do agree with you on the actor side of things. When in trouble, people look to heroes to save them, heroes look to Superman! You can't put across that kind of status on screen with a fresh faced pretty boy! If only Gerard Butler was American, or could at least do the accent! He's not perfect but he is close to having the solid frame and rugged chin needed for the role.

@RealSupesFan: That's exactly how I envisioned Superman. The way Alex Ross draws him. That is the Superman I've been wanting in the movies and the one we all need.

Great write-up Dan! honestly. i usually don't read many editorials unless they have nice shiny pictures and graphics for me to enjoy:) lol but i find the topic of Superman to be very polarizing, ESPECIALLY on this site. that's probably because im in the minority of users who aren't holding onto Superman's classic image.i admit im 100% a marvel guy. but that doesn't mean i dont love Green Lantern, Superman and everyone's fav Batman! but i want to throw a question out to anyone who cares and to you, Dan for writing this. it came to my mind when you said this - "I believe in Jesus and go to church regularly, I don't swear or steal and do my best to be the best person I can be. When I was growing up I loved Superman, I credit him as the role model that taught me my moral base as a young child." - well you'd be hard pressed to find a better role model than Superman himself so i can't knock you there. good choice. Now there is a large generation gap between you and i (i think the actual exact amount considered a "generation"- 32 years. im 22) so my moral compass is someone a bit newer, a bit edgier, but someone who's often compared to superman - Son Goku of DragonBall Z. they're both aliens marooned on earth at a young age who learn the virtues of humanity through their own mentors and role models and grow to protect those they've come to love. they do not kill, swear, cheat or lie. So even tho you're old enough to be my father we've both found similar role models to look-up too. but here's where we differ - im a stone cold atheist.

If you ask me there is no arguing the fact that Superman is an icon of the mid 20th century. He best represents the generation he comes from far better than anything else, an age of innocents, a day when "the American way" actually had meaning with most people. but it was also an era rife with war and economic strife when people needed a hero. and when i look back to that era it also seems like religion had a bigger impact on most Americans' every day lives than it does now. My grandparents still go to church every Sunday, my dad and all of his siblings went to catholic school. my grandpa on my mom's side was a preacher until he passed away early this year at the age of 80. (no doubt would've sent him to his grave sooner if he knew my beliefs) But, for some reason, my parents never pushed religion on me. they never took me to church except for the occasional Christmas eve, and never encouraged me one way or another. and i know im not the only one of my peers in that boat. so i've always wondered what happened between their childhood (which is also yours, Dan) and ours that lead to this disconnect between families and their religions? and your article got me thinking that there could be some correlation between that and the relevance of Superman to the average kid, the future generations.

I've heard a lot of good arguments on both sides of the "to update and modernize superman, or to not update and modernize superman" spectrum. To sum it up i'd say detractors say superman has to be changed in order to fit into a modern context, and their opponents would say that's exactly WHY we need him now - because his values and morals are something this "modern" world is in need of. Supes supporters also say that there is a reason he hasn't changed since 1938, because he's perfect the way he is. to which i would reply, name one other thing that people thought was perfect in 1938-America that hasn't changed, everything could use a little update. i can think of three things that haven't been - presidential term length, the American flag, and the bible. some people argue that Superman is AS important as some of those three things. he's iconic as the American flag, has more fans than the president and more movies than Jesus. but for some reason he's never been more irrelevant. lack of a high quality blockbuster movie? maybe. poor character direction in the comics? could be. but i think it's deeper than that. i feel like superman still represents an era rather than a country or it's people. an era where, in my view, religion more heavily influenced people's everyday lives. so my question is do you guys think religious beliefs correlate to which comic heroes you get behind, or your attitude towards them? Is a deeply religious person who believes in Christ more likely to get behind the symbolism of Superman and his American way more than say an Atheist or Agnostic? What causes a person to either want that symbolism back or to move on with something new? is it conscious? subconscious? is everyone different and im trying to pigeonhole people who can't be pigeonholed?

what do you guys think? (Dan, hope none of this offends you. just trying to start a little conversation:))

Odin & ROMACK - good stuff guys. I'm between you guys on age so maybe this will provide a missing link? Lol! Like you have said, Superman heavily reflects an era of war and economic turmoil. This brought people together, solidified family values and people had respect for eachother. One major factor was government. In their attempt to rally the people they spoke of a better tomorrow and filled us with hope. This is what Superman stood for, the hope of a better world. Through the years people have become disillusioned. Maybe as our leaders consistently lie or bend the truth. Or maybe it is just us, we are selfish and were unable to fully committ to making a better world or simply too short sighted to be able to stay the course. Either way, we have turned our attentions in toward ourself rather than looking out for eachother. We take care of ourselves first these days. Our motivation, no matter how noble the cause is our personal satisfaction. This is why the "anti hero" has become so popular. Superman is relevant today but sadly he is not as relevant as he should be

The reason they depowered him with the reboot in the 80's was because people/fans were getting bored with him being omnipotent. He could do too much, and Superman and Superman II were good examples. Turning the Earth backwards to rewind time, a superkiss that could erase memories. That is they type of stuff that that creators had to do to make Superman interesting. They had to create new powers, new Kryptonites, for their new stories. He could beat a guy hands down no problem and it was boring. Fans knew Superman could defeat the guy, and knew it would happen by the end of the issue. They depowered him so it would be more of a guessing game, as to whether Supes would be able to defeat this monster that was extremely more powerful. It allowed Superman to use his brain in conjunction instead of just his might.

ROMAKC@ so you're saying that's everything, including our religious beliefs, that tie us to these characters? can't argue, and you're sound logic about being a veteran relating to captain america is well thought out. you said yourself that your wartime experiences changed your outlook on the world. Both you and Dan are around the same age, were brought up in a religious setting but have found different characters to relate too (though i have no idea if Dan has a military background). let me ask you a question, but for the sake of the question let's just say that Superman and Cap both represent the "American way" (whatever that happened to be when they were published) would you say that a more cynical person is likely to get behind Cap, a character that goes to war and kills and even one time denounced America and became Nomad? while a more, lets say optimistic person, is likely to get behind Superman, who represents a better tomorrow, is indestructible and doesn't kill?

Ron@ so Superman comes from a time where people looked out for one another rather than themselves. (another correlation to Christianity, love thy neighbor) you compare the leaders of the past to those of today. but the thing is we can't ever really know what the leaders of the past were truly like because media wasn't as far reaching as it is now. presidents have been lying to our faces since George Washington. but the difference is we are more knowledgeable and less gullible now. and with all of this pseudo-science and more "realistic" characters like iron man, can today's audiences buy a man flying just because he can? (i can, but all of us on here are sci-fi nerds so we love that kind of stuff) or would we require some fake scientific explanation as too why he can defy gravity? your anit-hero comparison bothers me because i think you are 100% spot-on with that. but it scares me to think that that is where we are as a society now.

and this line: "Or maybe it is just us, we are selfish and were unable to fully commit to making a better world or simply too short sighted to be able to stay the course" - dude, you're the man.

Wow people good stuff! I thought it would take some time for people to even get interested in this site, thanks for all of your input. OK I have a lot to respond to so bear with me. Let me start with Tobuttica, the main reason comic books are so popular is that they allow us an escape from the real world into worlds of the fantastic, as far as (Chris Reeve) Superman turning back time by turning the earth backwards...classic, I loved that, the kiss however stupid Hollywood tripe. Throwing the "S" to capture his evil Kryptonian counterparts again classic Superman but the problem with that was no explanation. The comic books have a trait in common with sci fi like Star Trek the next generation they explain things like that with made up tech, we don't care that the tech doesn't exist we just want some sort of explanation. As far as his depowering he still could be hurt with Kryptonite and imprisoned and he couldn't be in two places at once so right there you have the basis for a plethora of ideas. The writers of the 1st Superman movie used both of those ideas in conjunction with the fact that Superman will not lie and it made a great movie. Superman could beat anyone or anything hands down true but because he was always worried about collateral damage truly evil villains were able to bait him, and even though he was supremely powerful there was still a thought in the back of our minds that maybe this time they'll find a weakness even Superman doesn't know about. The writers back then were able to think way outside the box BECAUSE he was so powerful, they had to.

To Romack, I liked Chris Reeve but the way Superman was written Reeve's hands were tied and his portrayal was too nice. Superman is an imposing figure someone that by his mere presence makes you want to shy away, but because of his outstanding moral fiber you at the same time knew he would never hurt anyone. Reeve could've been a little more edgy.

Epicman...what did you disagree with? What you wrote sounds pretty much how I feel, Clark Kent was "Mild mannered" not nerdy or goofy. There is no comedy relief needed.

ButtNakedSmurf, Superman being all powerful does not detract from the rest of the DCU, as I've said before Superman can't be in two places at once, Batman handles Gotham and nothing there ever hits the level of danger to get Supes involved, GL handles our entire quadrant so again Supes can focus on keeping earth safe the Flash deals with cool but again relatively minor bad guys. If the earth is ever under attack by a force too much for one being then we have the JLA. It totally works, it did when I was a kid and still would now.

There were a couple of comments that made me think some of you didn't realize that Clint Walker looked like that back in the 1960's he is way too old now, I was just using him as a framework to show that there are actors around that fit the bill. Like Romack again above with his choice of Daniel Cudmore, though Superman is only 6'4" Hollywood could play down Cudmore's 4" difference.

And Matador, c'mon dude! Really?!?

And finally I saved the best for last, OdinsBeard. You my friend are a very thoughtful man. I almost said "young" man but the way you think gives you wisdom beyond your youth. Please read all of this I'll keep it relatively short. I am sorry to hear that your parents didn't arm you with enough info to make an informed decision as far as eternal consequences. I too was raised Catholic but as I got older I realized that almost everything I had been taught was wrong. The Jesus of the Bible is not the Jesus depicted by many of the world's religions today. Did you know that there is more historical proof that not only was Jesus real but that he lived when and where the bible says? Catholics are one of the worse for making Jesus in accessible, they remind me of the Pharisees that Jesus had to deal with they want to keep the people under their subjugation and not God's. I was a grown man before I heard the "Gospel" which simply put is this, man is born in sin (he thinks he knows more than God what we need, its a control issue), Sin brings death because God is holy, we can't be around Him because it would destroy us sin cannot be in His presence. Jesus became our sin and paid the penalty so that we can be reconciled back to God. If you truly accept that it will change your life. Now as far as religion's part in who we pick as far as comic book heroes I don't think it plays a part. Did you know that the two guys that created Superman were Jewish? I think that who we like or dislike tends to relate more to how we view the world as a whole. God or not a hero is good and protects the innocent. We all need heroes and the world has plenty of real heroes but what I am trying to get across is this. Superman to me was a near god-like man that chose to be good and give his entire life in service to his fellow man (sounds almost like Jesus huh?) He kept his powers in check with an ever present iron will and only gave us an occasional glimpse as to their unlimited nature, we didn't even know if he knew how powerful he was. As far as updating and changing the man of steel I think its a pitiful attempt by DC to play into the whole political correctness that has infected our society. Superman was and still should be a god like man bound in service to mortal man by love. Keep 'em coming folks I love this stuff. The only salute I will give is to the "Elseworlds" story "Kingdom Come" THAT Superman is like the Supes of old. BRING BACK THE REAL SUPERMAN.

Matador@ lol. Not Rob lifield big! See Below!

OK, let me clear this up, I know I said that Superman was totally indestructible but it was more that the super villains knew he wasn't really but other than Kryptonite no one knew what his weakness was and that was part of the fun, the writers had to be extremely creative in thinking up not only ways to get him out of the way but first you had to outsmart him in order to bait him into a trap. Once there they would try all kinds of crazy stuff, but the villains also had to be careful because not knowing where that final line was could ultimately kill them as well. Just because you couldn't hurt him physically didn't mean you couldn't hurt him emotionally. His biggest weakness was always his love of his adoptive home and its people. Build a big enough deadly enough trap and Superman was at your mercy. Dan

Tyler@ When had Reeves or Routh shown leading man potential prior to their roles as Superman?

ROMACK: What makes him good enough to warrant giving him the role? Maybe screen test him, but he has not shown the necessary talent for anyone to completely support him getting the role.

Thank you, thank you. Please, it's just an honour to be a part of this. I'd like to thank my family, my friends who stood by me, God, without him none of this would be possible. Oh, and my agent! Steve, you're the best!

So what do I win? A trophy? What, nothing?! Then why am I even here?! There best be a good after party!

@ Ron,

Though I think Cudmore is an interesting choice, I don’t believe he works if Clark Kent needs to be believable. Honestly I don’t want to practice size discrimination, but the Clark Kent identity requires that the Man of Steel be able blend in. No one seeing Cudmore in his role as “Felix” in Twilight, or Colossus in the X-men, will miss the fact that he is a monumental standout. To me those seemed to be the best roles for him?

I forget who that bodybuilder’s name is yet he is huge in real life. But he is not that huge. The photo you have is a doctored fake. Sounds like you ultimately do not think being a professional actor matters.

Regarding the Rock I agree with you. It would be better to continue to look for athletic professional wrestlers to fill super hero roles. Having a great body, being athletic, and being used to acting matters when you are talking about having people perform on screen. Professional wrestling seems like excellent training yet few of these individuals ever end up playing super heroes.

Comicrelief1 - I didn't put across any of those arguments. I think you mean ROMACK.

Guys, on Daniel Cudmore keep in mind 3 things.

1. He is an actor. Not just a jock who started doing auditions. THe only reason he has not had any big leading man roles is he has not had the opporotunity.

2. He is 6'7", and while that IS taller than Clark Kent should ever look, there are a LOT of EASY hollywood tricks to make him look shorter in those scenes. Keep in mind that Hugh Jackman is 6'3", when Wolverine is only 5'4", that is 11" inches, and nobody cares, but then tac an extra 4" on Superman and everyone poops their pants.

3. He does have a very good look for the role, and while his has a bit of extra height, he does have the right build, and face.


I'd FAR rather they have a guy a few inches taller than Superman is in his sourcebook stats than a guy shorter. Heck, they comic artists never really do pay attention to sourcebook stats (which are not even consistent anyway), they just draw Superman as they feel he should look. In the case of many, he is big, tall, and imposing.