EDITORIAL: How To Get Superman Right - Part 2 of 4

EDITORIAL: How To Get Superman Right - Part 2 of 4

Part two of a four part editorial examining what's missing from the Superman films thus far.

If you read part one, thanks for coming back. The first installment of this editorial focused on the importance of establishing Clark's motivations and his choice to become Superman.

Part two is all about Clark and his parents, Martha and Jonathan Kent.


How different would Clark's life be if the Kents weren't the ones who found him? Or if he landed somewhere other than Kansas? It's an idea explored in stories like Mark Millar's "Red Son" and J.M. DeMatteis' "Speeding Bullets". An episode of "Smallville" even showed what happened if the Luthors found him.

It's no secret - Clark is who he is because of Martha and Jonathan Kent.

Now, some hear this and limit it to his time growing up on the farm. Yes, his actions are a reflection of their upbringing but Clark's parents are just as important to him as an adult. Arguably, more important.

Because, as in life, the parents' responsibility to their children don't end once they leave home. They're still needed. The same goes for Clark. This is one of the many things unique to Superman's mythology - his relationship with his parents - Of all the superhero properties out there, Clark's reflects the ideal family dynamic.

People give Superman a hard time for being "perfect". Because "he always makes the right decision" or "always knows what to do". They label his stories boring because of this. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, Superman often makes the right decision, thanks to Martha and Jonathan's teachings. But in the comics, he has doubts at times. He doesn't always have the answers. And when he doesn't know what to do he goes home. He turns to his parents for guidance. Fans who accuse Superman of not being relatable are overlooking this. Or they've never turned to their parents for help.

Martha and Jonathan play a prominent role in Clark's life, as a man and as Superman. Unfortunately, we don't see any of this in the films.

The writers kill off Jonathan in "Superman: The Movie" and "Man of Steel". "Superman Returns" is an unofficial "Superman III" or "Superman 2.5", considering how you look at it. Either way Jonathan isn't around anymore.

Jonathan does suffer a fatal heart attack in the comics but that's well into Clark's career as Superman. So why not wait until a third film for him to die? Then there's the way the films treat Martha.

In "Superman", after Jonathan's funeral, Clark leaves home and that's the last we see of her.

Unless you count "Returns" and Martha Kent is barely in that.

In "Man of Steel" Martha isn't given much to do. It feels as if she's there for Clark to save. In one scene she literally takes a backseat to Clark and Jonathan.

One of the great choices John Byrne made when relaunching Superman was having both parents live into Clark's adulthood.

They not only get to see their son grow into this inspirational figure but also play a prominent role in his ongoing battle. And not just his.

In the comics Martha and Jonathan influence other members of the Super-Family like Kara Zor-El and later Conner Kent. Imagine the Superman universe expanding like Fox's "X-Men" or Sony hopes for "Spider-Man". If Supergirl (or even Superboy) did appear in the new DCCU, it would be nice to see them on the Kent farm with Clark's parents. Even if it's a cameo appearance.

Bringing the Kent Family to the screen would help Warner Bros.' attempt to separate the franchise from every other superhero movie out there. It would incorporate themes like "going home" and "the importance of family". It would show, with all of his power, even Superman relies on his mom and dad.

We aren't getting any of that in our movies. Not Nolan's Batman. Not Spider-Man. And, despite how family friendly their films are, not from Marvel Studios.

The Fortress of Solitude is where Clark can be Kryptonian. The Kent Farm is where he can be himself.


Equally important is developing Martha and Jonathan's characters outside of Clark. Showing they have lives of their own. TV's "Smallville" did an outstanding job of this. Viewers got to see them argue. We got to see them fear for their son. We saw how deeply in love they were with one another. They weren't just the future Superman's parents, they were fleshed out characters in their own right.

We didn't get this in "Superman Returns". As mentioned before, Martha and the farm are barely in it. In "Man of Steel" there's only one line of dialogue between Martha and Jonathan in the whole film and that's an offhand remark aimed at Clark.

The closest look we get at Martha and Jonathan's relationship are the moments in "Superman" when they find Clark's ship. It's the only scene in six films that's about them.

One of the ideas "Man of Steel" is built on is the fear Clark's existence would create. Are Martha and Jonathan exempt?

Consider this - instead of opening with twenty minutes on Krypton what if they showed the moment the Kents discover Clark is different? Something where one of his powers manifests - and someone gets hurt.

Maybe three year old Clark accidentally breaks Martha's wrist. Or Jonathan is singed when Clark's heat vision fires for the first time. We see how frightened they are and are suddenly faced with this impossible decision.

To take it further, later on an older Clark asks straight up, "Were you ever afraid of me?"


As mentioned in part one of this editorial, it feels as if Warner Bros. doesn't have faith in Superman or the messages his stories offer. His messages are optimistic. They should be with a name like "The Man of Tomorrow".

In the New 52 both Martha and Jonathan are dead. As if DC is saying loss makes him more interesting, or "gives him depth". As if he were flat to begin with. The thing is, Superman wasn't and never has been flat.

Pessimism is not "more realistic" than optimism. Having both of his parents to turn to or having them encourage and support his choices doesn't make his story less interesting. Martha and Jonathan are a vital part of Clark being Superman and a Superman film should show that.

People say characters like Spider-Man, Wolverine and Batman are "cooler" than Superman. But, truthfully, whose life would you really want, Peter Parker's, Bruce Wayne's or Clark's?

Part three of this editorial will focus on Superman, what he represents and pulling off the Clark Kent "secret identity". Until then, let's hear your thoughts. Sound off below. And, again, thanks for reading!

Posted By:
Member Since 11/25/2013
Filed Under "Superman" 1/9/2014
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
Platinum - 1/9/2014, 4:21 PM
Great article once again but I have to disagree with you on the Spider-Man films, well at least the Raimi ones.

Knightrider - 1/9/2014, 4:28 PM
There is nothing wrong with always doing what is right, as sometimes doing the right thing is the hardest thing to do...more stories where perhaps doing the right thing causes lives to be lost. E.G. Choosing between one or many lives.

I feel the comics sometimes make everything work out alright when he makes the right choice, where I think we need to see him coping with his life and death decisions.

As for his parents, I have liked most portrayals each has brought something new to the table.
TwistedKingdom - 1/9/2014, 4:45 PM
@ Pending

I'm 50/50 on that. Only because she doesn't know Peter is Spider-Man. He doesn't confide in her the way Clark does with his parents.

Although this scene always gets me. Is she saying she knows without actually saying she knows?
Platinum - 1/9/2014, 5:17 PM
I get ya, the fact that he doesn't have to hide either side of himself and can outright ask them about anything be it superhero related or not does make their relationship unique. They trust each other. Something I felt was missing completely in MOS.
QuestiontheAnswer - 1/9/2014, 5:39 PM
I agree with this for the most part however Martha's role in MoS shouldn't have changed, Jonathan's shoud've.
yonny616 - 1/9/2014, 6:25 PM
I loved Man of Steel, and I'm still bummed Jonathan died. I'm not saying I don't like the tornado scene, because it worked for me, but if they just keep Pa Kent alive!!
SauronsBANE - 1/9/2014, 7:07 PM
@ TwistedKingdom, I definitely enjoyed reading your 1st article, and this one is just as good! Great points.

It's almost like filmmakers are afraid of going in depth with Clark's relationship with his parents, as if the audience would find it "boring" or "unnecessary." And maybe with today's general population, they're right. So they gave us that 30 minute opening action scene on Krypton rather than any meaningful scene.

My pet peeve is that they actually show baby Clark's spaceship crashing to Earth on the Kent's farm, and then BAM! We flash-forward to Clark as a fully grown adult. Why? Because they simply wanted to make this movie "different" (and, ironically, they wanted to make it in the same vein as Batman Begins, which utilized flashbacks in a MUCH more effective manner). I argue that showing Clark's story in chronological order would've worked 10 times better. Give us scenes like the flashback of Martha consoling a terrified Clark in his school closet. Deepen their relationship. Show us why we should care about them.

And I applaud you for making it through this entire article without even mentioning how Jonathan Kent is a psychopath. He really is. I applaud you because that was definitely the most obvious criticism of him, and you actually looked deeper and found some more legitimate complaints about the whole family dynamic.

But seriously, in their effort to make Superman "darker," they decided to make the ONE person who's supposed to be his moral compass into this weird, wishy-washy, morally ambiguous father who doesn't teach Clark much of anything except to hide. Hide himself, hide is powers, because otherwise it leads to uncomfortable questions from other parents that he has to deal with. Because the Men in Black will come and take him away. So yeah, maybe let those innocent kids die! Ugh.

Pa Kent in MoS isn't "deep" or "3 dimensional" or anything like that. He's morally ambiguous for the sake of ambiguity. He's an illusion of depth and sophistication. The only purpose he serves in the movie is a stumbling block, someone who stands in the way of Clark becoming who he's supposed to be. When he dies in the utterly idiotic way that he does, all that scene does is remove that block from the main character's life. That's it. I highly doubt the filmmakers meant for Pa Kent to fill that villainous role.
KoonEl - 1/9/2014, 8:12 PM
John Schneider = Best Jonathan Kent ever

I say if you want to see the reasons why Clark becomes Superman, then watch Smallville. 10 seasons of why he becomes Superman. Sure there is the prophecy mumbo jumbo, and Jor-el and Jonathan telling him there's a bigger purpose, but there is no doubt that Clark made choice after choice in that run. Was is drawn out? Of course. Could it have tied up 3 seasons earlier, and then become the early adventures of Superman? Of course. But the character development was there. The initial doubt was there. But Clark always kept coming back to be the hero that we knew he was meant to be. Choice vs destiny? I think that for Clark it is both in every medium. Smallville showed us that the best. I'm not trying to claim that Smallville was the best interpretation of the character that has ever been done or is possible, but it definitely gave us everything that the author here is asking for and more.
Read more at http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/TwistedKingdom/news/?a=92534#gw2ircRjIRqtSImH.99
jaysin420 - 1/9/2014, 10:33 PM
Great article, the Kents being alive and part of the story is one of the big reasons I enjoyed Lois n Clark so much.
JosephKing - 1/10/2014, 3:12 AM
Your vision about the Kent parents is cool, I just don't see why is it "the right way", as if it was more valid than other interpretations.

Look, I would like to see a Superman movie developing this whole Kent family thing as you're suggesting, but I have absolutely no problem with the way Superman: The Movie and Man of Steel did it, I think both of them did great jobs (Man of Steel made it in a particularly complex and intriguing way, therefore the controversy).

So in the end of the day, it doesn't matter. What matters is if it works inside the movie's proposition.
Klone - 1/10/2014, 4:39 AM
I feel John's death is necessary for forcing Clark to go find his heritage (The Fortress) with amibitions to go abroad and help people prior to John's death, only to consolidate the fact that Clark isn't like Parker where he needed someone to die to make him a person that would help people: he had ambitions of doing it beforehand, John's death merely made him realize he isn't invincible or all powerful and forced his hand into discovering his heritage. Keep Ma around though!!
MightyZeus - 1/10/2014, 4:40 AM
This article is a great read. I'm eager and interested to read more from you. I find your points about The Kents interesting and how they should be used as a mentor to Clark Kent and how they should be used to there full extent in Clark's life.

I did not mind the way The Kent's where used in Superman The Movie or Man of Steel my only problem was the way the flash back scenes where told it seemed they where out of sequence. Apart from that the way Kent's Mum was used was superb.
Klone - 1/10/2014, 4:43 AM
With Ma around you can still have the family theme and a loving atmosphere that many can relate to, but I really feel John dying (of a heart attack or something really small and simple) does so much to help develop Clark's character and be a huge part of his origin. When done right (i.e. no dumb tornado) John's death is quintessential.
Klone - 1/10/2014, 4:48 AM

I love you. Excellent mini review about MoS Kent. Make Pa morally grey doesn't add more depth than having a father-son relationship that people can relate to. When Pa dies, what will people be more sad over; the loving, caring, likable, good 'ol man in his 50th that brought warmth to the film and helped a confused Clark understand what he could do with his powers or the unlikable, miserable prick that never smiles, is joyless, sucks the life out of the film and only oppressed Clark. There are already morally grey characters in Superman's mythos already. Take Lex Luthor. At times, while still being an utter bastard, he has really understandable motivation, like seeing Supermna as the end of human potential.
Klone - 1/10/2014, 4:50 AM
Clark is a flawed, complex character with a lot of weight on his shoulders and turmoils and pathos of his own, but being a good man is because of the Kents. He wasn't born innately good, Pa and Ma raised him into a good person. If you're going to say Clark being a generally good person (still with flaws, turmoils, inner conflicts and pathos though) is boring and unrealistic because he had parents that RAISED him to be a good person, you must be one of those pretentious pricks that wants everything to be dark because you think dark and miserable equals depth and compelling storytelling.
JosephKing - 1/10/2014, 5:30 AM
I don't think Jonathan is morally ambiguous in Man of Steel at all. LIFE is morally ambiguous, Jonathan is just a guy who's aware of this fact. He's a farmer from Kansas, a normal man, of course he doesn't have the answers to everything and of course he can't be THE "moral compass", because nobody can. In the real world, people won't always know what is the right thing to do and, actually, in the real world you won't always have the option to do something TOTALLY right without bad consequences. Jonathan is just being a responsible father and teaching it to Clark. Clark's existence is dangerous by itself - an alien with super powers, a mass destruction weapon walking among us is not "inspiring" by itself, it is reason for global panic and social disaster. Jonathan doesn't want to expose Clark to that scenario WHILE HE'S STILL A KID.

Really, what kinda annoys me about the "maybe" backlash is not the total misinterpretation of the whole scene, it's the absolute lack of common sense of people actually thinking Jonathan was being a prick. Of course he wants to protect his son AND the world of the premature revelation of Clark's existence and its terrible consequences. He's not reproaching Clark for saving the children, he's reproaching Clark for being reckless about his secret, just like ANY responsible father would do in that situation.

Anyway, but that's just ONE valid way of approaching Jonathan and the whole Kents issue, of course there are others, more black and white ways that are also cool.
Lhornbk - 1/10/2014, 8:33 AM
No, I think it is better for Pa Kent to die around the time Clark is 17-19 yrs. old. That is the impetous for him to leave, discover who he is. And Martha can still help him when needed.

As for Johnathon being "morally ambiguous" in MoS, I disagree. He told Clark that he would change the world, he knew that keeping Clark safe could potentially affect millions, if not billions, for the better. He considered that more important than saving a few lives here and there and exposing himself. He was looking at the big picture.
SauronsBANE - 1/10/2014, 10:07 AM
@ MAC, Oh man I think I'm blushing right now. Pretty sure I've never been told "I love you" on this site before haha.

But seriously, they chose to make Pa Kent have a moral grey area because they needed the movie to feel like it was deeper than it really was. Having a father figure say things like "maybe" when talking about the deaths of innocent kids is exactly the kind of shocking thing that makes people immediately think the movie is "deep" or "complicated" or "mature." It's not. It's all window dressing.

That's also why they decided to make Clark into a brooding, dark, mini-Batman, by having him go around and telling people how "conflicted" he is...even though he never actually ACTS conflicted...ever. For all of Pa Kent's warnings about keeping his powers a secret, when does he ever actually listen?? He still saves the kids on the bus (and from their conversation later, it's implied that Clark's done this kind of thing before. So obviously he's never listened to Pa Kent's "advice"). He still saves the workers on the oil rig. And he does this despite the fact that, according to Pa Kent, the "time isn't right." Whatever that means. The most damning thing is that Clark doesn't become Superman because "the time's right" or because "the world's ready" for him. It's because he HAS to. So not only is Pa Kent wishy-washy and kind of a psycho, but all of his "teachings" and "advice" turn out to be flat out wrong. What a truly terribly-written character.
SuperPickle - 1/10/2014, 11:00 AM
To get Superman right?

That implies there is one definitive version.

Which one?

Opinions like this are always based on one's own concept of the character. Not everyone agrees. There are 75 years of canon from which to pull your concept of Supermen. Which one? What makes yours the definitive?

How long of a run of the comic did you write? What years? Was it in Action Comics, Superman, Justice League?

There have been so many takes on the character that no one person can even describe a good, definitive Superman.

My idea? Sit back and enjoy the movies or go make your own.
ChuckV - 1/10/2014, 1:33 PM
Great article... but some people are just gonna continue to defend MOS regardless.. which is fine i suppose - thats what independent thinking is all about.

As for the definitive version of Superman based on 75 years of canon? In my opinion, the writers always go back to the core character that has dominated the character's history. Only now with the Nu52 do they seem head strong in presenting a 'new" version closer to what MOS is offering. (Let's see how long that sticks.)

Tweaks in his origins (specifically how the Kents raised him) have never stayed as far as they did in MOS, especially with Jonathan Kent.
aresww3 - 1/10/2014, 1:34 PM
Beautiful man. I applaud beautiful. Man Of Steel was so disapointing, I almost still haven´t got over it
ChuckV - 1/10/2014, 1:44 PM

"Consider this - instead of opening with twenty minutes on Krypton what if they showed the moment the Kents discover Clark is different? Something where one of his powers manifests - and someone gets hurt."

Fantastic point. While i liked the opening with Krypton, establishing WHY Clark would be feared by the public because of his powers wasn't made clear enough for my tastes and if they were going that route more of a case should've been made.
daddybear - 1/10/2014, 2:07 PM
i would like to have your entire opinion on MOS (no d*ck riding) how could i get it? Because i've seen what you've said so far on this editorial and i have to say that your arguments are really convincing, and still i didn't feel anything when i saw MOS.
TwistedKingdom - 1/10/2014, 2:32 PM
Hey, guys. Thanks again for reading.

Quick question. Do you think maybe Jonathan Kent would've been perceived much differently if he responded to Clark's question differently?

Clark: What was I supposed to do, let them die?

Instead of answering "maybe"…

Jonathan: Of course not but…

And then he goes into his "the world isn't ready" speech. I also would've liked to have seen him show some level of pride in what Clark did. As Koonel points out above, John Schneider = Best Jonathan Kent ever. Even Lex wanted to make him proud.

He (and Martha) would warn Clark about being reckless but also expressed pride in his heroic actions. Would an "I'm so proud of you but you've gotta be more careful, son" be too much to ask?

Also I think losing Jonathan early makes his story just like some other heroes' origin stories. It's been done over and over. Spider-Man, Batman, Daredevil - losing a parent put them on their paths. I think having Martha and Jonathan around not only separates Superman from everyone else but shows not every hero needs tragedy to inspire them to greatness.

I'm not saying Jonathan shouldn't ever die just wait until after Clark's been Superman for a while. Like in the "Brainiac" arc in Action Comics.
TwistedKingdom - 1/10/2014, 3:02 PM

I see what you're saying about Jonathan in MoS and I'm betting those were Goyer's intentions. But sometimes what a writer intends and what he actually writes don't always match.

I think Bane1 summed it up - it felt like "they needed the movie to feel like it was deeper than it really was".

What was the difference between the world when Clark was 14 and when he was 33? Why is it ready now as opposed to 19 years ago? And then he's "outed" by Zod rather than revealing himself on his own.

Going back to what we were discussing in the first editorial, I prefer Superman being Clark's idea. This way HE decides when to reveal himself because HE believes the world is ready. His actions drive the course of the film instead of him being at mercy to it.
ChuckV - 1/10/2014, 3:06 PM
"Do you think maybe Jonathan Kent would've been perceived much differently if he responded to Clark's question differently?"

Well, you answered your question good enough but i'll add that one of the flaws in MOS was the dialogue... the filmmakers had great intentions but the execution was poor.
SauronsBANE - 1/10/2014, 3:06 PM
@ TwistedKingdom, I think if he had said something along the lines of "*Sigh* of course not, but you have to be a little more careful and discreet with your powers," then it would've been much more effective. It gets across the idea that Pa Kent is a bit scared and paranoid of his son's powers and the consequences it could have, but it also shows him instilling Clark with the qualities of caring for others. Having him just say "Maybe" is lazy. Lazy writing that opens up a world of criticism.

But even if he had spelled out his feelings a little better, it wouldn't negate the fact that he keeps trying to suppress his son's potential.

Sure, he can wax poetic all he wants about how at some distant, undefined point in the future (when the world's "ready" for him...but who the heck knows when that will be? If ever?), Clark will eventually have to make some sort of choice about using his powers for good or bad. But what about NOW? What about bringing up Clark as someone who cares and loves the human race? This is all forgotten about in favor of moral grey areas, which doesn't give this movie any more depth or emotion. It just comes across as ridiculous.
SauronsBANE - 1/10/2014, 3:07 PM
"What was the difference between the world when Clark was 14 and when he was 33? Why is it ready now as opposed to 19 years ago? And then he's "outed" by Zod rather than revealing himself on his own.

Going back to what we were discussing in the first editorial, I prefer Superman being Clark's idea. This way HE decides when to reveal himself because HE believes the world is ready. His actions drive the course of the film instead of him being at mercy to it."

Absolutely, 100% correct, IMO. Completely summed up most of the problems right there. Well done.
Ancar - 1/10/2014, 3:38 PM
I'm really surprise about this youth of today... A bunch of old men in young skins it seems...
Prime - 1/10/2014, 4:03 PM
Goyer sucks, should have just made the first part Birthright.
JosephKing - 1/10/2014, 5:52 PM

"What was the difference between the world when Clark was 14 and when he was 33? Why is it ready now as opposed to 19 years ago? And then he's "outed" by Zod rather than revealing himself on his own."

Jonathan never said the world was going to change by itself. He always stated that coming out and standing proud in front of the human race was going to be Clark's decision and CLARK was going to change the world. Of course the world wouldn't be ready, the world as we know won't ever be ready for that kind of thing. Clark's line "he believed the world wasn't ready" shouldn't be understood out of context, it doesn't mean that Jonathan believed that one day the world was going to accept Clark naturally, it just means that... the world wasn't ready - and that's pretty clear if you consider what Jonathan says during the whole rest of the movie.

The difference wasn't the world, the difference was Clark. Jonathan wanted to give Clark a chance to chose what to do with his powers, a chance to find out where he came from, a chance to be a grown, self-aware adult who understands his responsibility before revealing himself as a walking mass destruction weapon. He didn't want to put this weight on the shoulders of a kid. Maybe it's easier to understand in a real world scenario: you don't give a gun to your 14 years old son because he's supposedly a good person. It's the same principle with Clark, he's too young and emotionally immature to have that responsibility. And that's not even different from the comics. In the comics, Clark reveals himself as an adult, it means that he was hiding the rest of his life, it means that he didn't reveal himself when he was 14. So basically, Jonathan was right all the time. Clark SHOULD hide while he was a kid, HE wasn't ready to make that choice. And again, Jonathan wasn't reproaching Clark for saving the kids, he was reproaching Clark for being reckless about his secret. He never said "we already talked about this, you should let children die", he said "we already talked about this, you should keep this side of yourself a secret". HUGE difference there. Jonathan's dillema was: if saving those kids meant revealing Clark's secret too early to the world, causing global panic and exposing a 14 years old boy who can't be controlled to a situation like that, then MAYBE it would be better to let those kids die. Better a bunch of kids dying in an accident than Clark becoming a spiteful god amongst men and enslaving humanity or any other bad scenario that would probably happen. The possibilites are plenty, you don't need to be particularly smart to imagine what would happen if we discovered an indestructible alien kid in Kansas with powers to destroy armies and take down governments alone.

And by the way, it's true that Zod "outed" Clark, but it's also true that it was misfortune, Clark was going to reveal himself anyway, he was just hanging out with his mom a little before doing it. Unfortunately to him, Zod came faster.
Kryptonick724 - 1/10/2014, 5:58 PM
OMg....are some of you DC fans (not all of you..but some of you..and I can talk about you because I am one) STILL talking about this movie when they are already shooting the sequel...?!

Stop living in the past. You didn't like the movie. I respect that, but many of us did and really wish you'd just be quiet and watch the Reeve era or Tom Welling or Dean Cain or just at least stop writing these articles about MOS.

MOS is the greatest thing to ever happen to Superman in a decade...why?! Because he's NEVER been discussed this much with regards to cinema.

Don't like MOS...don't watch it. Kind of like me and the Sam Raimi Spider-man movies. I hate them, I don't watch them or complain. Because I like ASM. You fans who don't like MOS...you have Donner..Watch that and smile. :)

Let me put MOS in the blu ray and watch my man.."You're a monster Zod...and I'm going to stop you!" Hell yeah.
wavehunter - 1/10/2014, 8:39 PM
@ 1to10youLose - well said, sir.
Brady1138 - 1/10/2014, 9:33 PM
Or just make Man of Steel.

yonny616 - 1/10/2014, 11:55 PM
@1to10 What the hell are you talking about? Smallville I've never seen, but to imply it'll suck becuase Smallville kept Pa Kent alive is STUPID, especially since the animated series kept him alive too!
Knightstalker - 1/11/2014, 12:02 AM
Well said, this article gives credibility to why I have always liked "Lois & Clark". While the show had it's issues, it portrayed Clark's relationship with his parents well. When he needed advice or was having a moral crisis he knew he could always rely on mom and dad to keep him on the right course.
loki668 - 1/11/2014, 12:11 AM
I think that they're telling the story of Superman's journey from his first attempts to protecting the world. They want to show HOW he became the icon and inspiration for the rest. It didn't happen on his first day. It happened with experience (and those are usually the bad kinds) and that experience makes him what he is. I like the idea of seeing the journey and not portraying him as "Super Baby Cosmic Jesus" who never made an error in his life. It's THAT kind of portrayal that caused people to consider him "old-fashiioned" and turn away.
SkaarJones - 1/11/2014, 1:15 AM
@1to10youlose the existence of aliens doesn't disprove God. The Bible doesn't say there aren't other planets with life. Who's to say other planets didn't have their own experience with Jesus at the exact same time we did.
loki668 - 1/11/2014, 3:15 AM
Oh shit. Things are about to get religious in here. GOOD THING I'M A GOD!!! BWAH-HA-HA-HAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!
Klone - 1/11/2014, 4:18 AM
I do not see how an alien existing automatically proves religion is false. Though I think religion holds humanity back and must be decimated, a lot of Christians, Jews, etc. have actually accepted evolution as a fact now though merely believe it was engineered by a higher being (i.e. God). Your whole religion destroying shit thing is your own spin on it to seem like that was something MoS was actually trying to convey. IT WASN'T. And Clark's now revealed himself and I hardly doubt they are every going to touch on the religion thing lol.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.