Superman vs. Clark Kent

/ Superheroes, TV shows

I know what you’re thinking after reading the title. What do you mean Superman VS Clark Kent? Everyone knows they’re the same person unless you mean something like Bizarro or that scene in Superman III where Clark and Superman actually DID split in two…

I mean the distinction between the persona of Superman and the persona of Clark Kent. Superman is cool because he’s the first comic book hero. If it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have many of the other superheroes in pop culture. He’s the best example of an ideal hero–a person with solid morals who helps people just because he can. Superman is arguably the most important superhero but that doesn’t mean he’s the most interesting. We know he can’t get hurt unless there’s Kryptonite around, so it’s hard to build suspense. It’s hard to care about a character who doesn’t actually sacrifice or risk anything by going into dangerous situations to save people.

Superman isn’t very interesting because he’s so powerful. Clark Kent, though, fascinates me.

No matter what, Clark Kent is an outsider. He has loving parents who consider him their own son, but his superpowers set him apart from everyone else on the planet. He has to keep his true origins a secret, and when he develops his powers, he has to hide them. Clark Kent constantly has to hold back, and he has to put up a front that he’s a normal, ordinary person (unless he’s in his Superman suit). I love watching how a person deals with that, and that’s infinitely more interesting than Superman’s track record of saving lives.

So when someone asks me who my favorite superhero is, I say Superman but I actually mean Clark Kent (and you can’t have one without the other). Maybe I should just say Spiderman from now on so I don’t have to deal with remarks like, “But Superman’s so lame because he’s so strong!” I understand that, and it’s not why I like the character…but I’m off on a tangent.

My interest in Clark Kent was the primary reason I fell in love with Smallville. I loved the series because the premise was Clark Kent in high school. (It also helped that the series was well done–good cast, smart direction, the budget for awesome visual and special effects.) Smallville was about Clark growing up, figuring out who he is, and having a normal life despite his alien origins. Superman wasn’t part of the story yet. For the first four seasons, the show focused on Clark most of the time, and it was great. We saw him make mistakes, but we also saw the inklings of a hero emerge. No television series had explored Clark Kent as a teenager, and the fact that Smallville was highest-rated series in a long time on the WB was proof that people were tuning in and enjoying it.

Somewhere along the line, the writers lost sight of what made the show incredible. For me, that point was the 100th episode when Jonathan died. Martha and Jonathan Kent were an important part of the show. They were the only people who knew Clark’s secret so they were the only ones he could go to for guidance and advice. For a while, the Kent family was the best portrayal of a TV family. That ended in the 100th episode, and Martha isn’t even on the show anymore. I stopped watching Smallville regularly after that, and I tune in every now and then (because old habits die hard), but the show’s just not the same anymore.

I’m not saying the show isn’t good anymore. Smallville got renewed for a ninth season, so it still has a strong audience. It’s just not the same show it was when it started. I know the show has gained a lot of viewers over the years, but I think they lost fans along the way too because of the changes they’ve made.

5 Things I Love About Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

/ TV shows /

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles returned for a second season on FOX. The series has its ups and downs, but it has my attention. Set between the second and third Terminator movies, The Sarah Connor Chronicles explores Sarah’s task to raise her son to lead mankind against the machines in the future. The series stars Lena Headey as Sarah Connor, Thomas Dekker as John Connor, Summer Glau as Cameron (a reprogrammed terminator future John sent back to help), and Brian Austin Green as Derek Reese. Here are 5 things that keep me interested in the series. (Minor spoilers for season 2, episodes 1 and 2)


Image from FOX

5. Sarah is in charge

I know we’re in a post-Buffy era where strong female characters aren’t so rare anymore, but regardless I enjoy how much of the series is about Sarah. It would have been easy to focus on John and his destiny, to watch the hero grow up (and that might also make for a good series), but instead we see how Sarah deals with what’s going on. She can’t provide a normal life for her son and she doesn’t try to. Sarah is careful about trusting Cameron and she adjusts to working with Derek, a resistance fighter from the future. They all have different ways of doing things, but Sarah takes the lead. Sarah is one of the few fictional mothers that must put her son in harm’s way for the greater good, and she doesn’t shy away from that challenge.

4. Time travel

Time lines play a big part in the Terminator movies, and even though the writers use time travel in the show, they’re smart about it. We’re clear on who’s from the future and from when and what they’re doing in the present. Sarah, John, Derek, and Cameron are always working toward a better future, so we don’t have a mess about altering the past to affect the present or the future. Time travel can be really confusing but the series keeps it clean.

3. Flashbacks of the future

This doesn’t seem to make sense at first, but neither does “back to the future.” We see glimpses of Derek’s memories–his past, which means our future–and we also see random scenes from the future. Robot fights, resistance fighters taking out bases…They’re a direct tie to the future depicted in the original Terminator movie.

2. Cameron isn’t human

Summer Glau is so believable as a terminator. She’s socially awkward, blunt in her comments, and always takes the efficient path rather than the compassionate one. She calculates her movements and her speech sounds unnatural at times. She’s programmed to act the way she does, and it shows. The season 2 premiere showed us Cameron out of control, and as scary as that is, the insecure feeling that she could short circuit at any moment and attack John is even scarier. Glau may seem meek and unassuming, but she packs a lot of power into her role.

1. John Connor, strategist

John Connor’s characterization hasn’t been completely consistent throughout the series. Sometimes he needs his mother’s protection, and sometimes he plays the rebellious teenager. He’s been a peacekeeper but also the one to spark action. John’s brilliant at times, and I love those moments when he shines, when I believe he will lead humankind against the machines. The first season finale showed John’s intelligence through his plan to take out the AI traffic control network. We see John’s training applied to how he talks to new people and how he moves in unfamiliar places. The Connors have a code of saying the date first when they talk call each other to ensure that a terminator isn’t mimicking one of their voices over the phone. Simple things, but that’s what makes their characters. I hope as the series goes on, we see John grow into an intelligent, strong leader.

Hancock had a good premise

/ Movies, Superheroes

I wasn’t very interested in seeing Hancock, but it wasn’t a waste of time. It started off as an interesting, original superhero film. John Hancock (played by Will Smith) has superpowers but a bad reputation with the public. Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is a public relations executive who offers to reinvent Hancock’s image after Hancock saves his life. Charlize Theron plays Mary, Ray’s wife. Major plot spoilers below the image.

I like the idea of a superhero who helps out but doesn’t really care about others. Hancock saves people and stops disasters, but he doesn’t make it nice and tidy. He wrecks buildings and he causes traffic jams. It’s a nice change from Superman creating fine-tuned order out of chaos. (Watch the scene in Superman Returns where Superman zips around Metropolis during the earthquake, blasting broken glass with his heat vision and catching falling parts of buildings before they hit the pedestrians on the street below. It’s cool and only Superman could pull that off, but it’s too neat.) Granted, we don’t know why Hancock even bothers, but it’s nice to see a super-powered person who gets his hands dirty.

The movie could have stayed on that thread–a superhero who needs to reinvent his image, who needs to have a better reputation with the public and answer to the damages he causes. It’s similar to that guy suing Mr. Incredible for saving him when he didn’t want to be saved. It can be comical and it’s different. It makes you think about how superheroes would function in the real world. Will Smith could have easily pulled that off, but even he couldn’t make the rest of Hancock entertaining.

It should have ended with the new and improved Hancock, polite and available to lend a helping hand in his spiffy suit. The movie drags on though. The lame mythos, the soap-opera side-plot between Hancock and Mary (lost lovers with a dash of amnesia mixed in) and the forced sacrifices the characters have to make feel like excuses to have a few fight scenes and blood.

Hancock deserves some credit for a different take on superhero movies, but the last third of the movie should have been cut.

Marvel and DC Movies

/ Movies, Superheroes

Since I saw Iron Man last week, I’ve been thinking about a few differences between Marvel and DC comic book movies. I like movies from both and I’m not saying one side is necessarily better than the other.

For the sake of brevity and to keep me from rambling too much, I’m not counting sequels. The Dark Knight comes out in July and Spiderman and X-Men both had successful sequels. But I’m not talking about those–just the first installments.

Here’s the list of why I think Marvel is more willing to take risks but still respects the comic book origins of its characters.

1) Marvel jump-started the superhero movie genre with X-Men.

I think most people consider Spiderman the beginning of the current trend of comic book movies because it was so successful, but mutants were in theaters two years earlier with X-Men in 2000. We had the Superman movies in the late 70s and early 80s, and Marvel brought back spandexed heroes in the 21st century.

2) It’s okay to change the costume, but be sensible.

Brandon Routh’s Superman and Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman donned darker colored suits than their traditional bright costumes, and that worked out well. Hugh Jackman’s wardrobe went a step further by replacing Wolverine’s yellow suit with black leather. This change might have offended classic fans, but it was a smart move. Silver-screen Wolverine in sunshine yellow just wouldn’t have been as intimidating. Or nearly as cool. Marvel knows when comic book and cartoon colors won’t translate to real life.

3) Main characters can be serious and funny in the same movie. Really.

Every comic book movie to date has its bright and dark moments, but I think Marvel does a better job of balancing the two sides. Peter Parker’s geekiness and the younger X-Mens’ lack of control add some comic relief to their movies. “But wait,” you say, “Clark Kent’s dorky. That’s funny sometimes.” That’s not enough. You need smart, funny dialogue. A broad sense of humor that appeals to a lot of people.

Iron Man has it: Tony Stark’s snarky, sarcastic personality, his flops in developing the suit, his quirky robots. Comedic timing in there throughout the movie.

Sure, Clark’s a dork, but I’m not laughing when he gets stabbed with Kryptonite seconds after Lex mocks him. I am, however, cheering on Iron Man even as he’s fighting a machine 3 times his size. Batman Begins has it’s moments, but I mostly remember rain, sewers, and Batman’s cape billowing across the screen. Uplifting moments have to stick out if you’re going to remember a movie’s light-heartedness.

4) Changing minor things is okay, but please leave major aspects of the character alone.

I can make this point brief. Giving Spiderman organic webbing is (arguably) cool. Giving Superman an illegitimate son is (definitely) not.

5) You can appeal to more than superhero fans. (Yes, it can be done.)

Marvel movies do a great job with giving the audience a brief origin story and necessary background information with plenty of time left for an awesome movie made of action scenes, character development, suspense, humor, and a little romance. We see Peter Parker get bitten by the spider, and then he gets his powers. Does the movie have to tell us how his parents died? No, so it doesn’t. Tony Stark builds his iron suit while being held captive, but we don’t hear anything about his mother (and that’s okay). We meet the heroes and then they’re off to save citizens and fight crime.

DC has a different method. We see Bruce Wayne watch his parents’ murder. We see he’s afraid of bats, and he becomes Batman to overcome his fear and fight crime in Gotham. That’s really great, but is all of that introduction necessary? Even with the movie reigniting the franchise? I don’t know. I would have been fine going into the movie knowing this Batman was slightly different from past incarnations. I wouldn’t need multiple scenes to explain it to me. Then there’s Superman Returns. Good fun if you’re a long-time Superman fan and enjoy spotting all the references to past incarnations of the Man in Steel. The film’s crew obviously spent a lot of time working those references in, but that work will be appreciated only by a small audience who already loved Superman. What good are those homages to the casual viewer?

The scene where Superman catches Kitty’s speeding car is well-shot and exciting. But how many people know that Superman’s stance as he lowers the car to the street is a throwback to Action Comics 1, the first comic book in which Superman appeared?

 

Or for another example, how many people saw the bartender near the beginning of the film and thought he looked familiar? Superman fans know the actor is Jack Larson, and he portrayed Jimmy Olsen in the 1950s live-action Adventures of Superman series (with George Reeves as Superman/Clark Kent).

Those bits in the movie are great for existing Superman fans, but the general audience doesn’t care. Superman Returns is a decent movie on its own, but there are several confusing things in the plot-holed script. What’s going on with Superman’s son? Since when does Perry have a nephew (involved with Lois)? Is the Fortress of Solitude broken? More knowledgeable fans can guess answers to these questions, but everyone else is lost.

6) Marvel makes movies for its lesser-known heroes.

DC have given us Batman and Superman, and that’s great. But everyone knows Batman and Superman, so their movies both had a pretty good chance at success. Marvel, however, takes its chances with lesser known characters (or at least looks past its most popular franchises). Marvel gave us the X-Men, Spiderman, and the Hulk, but it also gave us Daredevil, the Fantastic 4, and Iron Man.

DC could risk a little more. They’ve got Green Arrow, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Hawk Girl, Green Lantern…all those characters have potential to be great movies. So where are they? I really want to see a live-action Batman Beyond. With Inque. Hey, I can have high hopes.

Comic book movies are in right now, and they’re successful at the box office among a broad audience. Marvel seems to know what its doing with its characters. I’d like to see DC step up and give us more characters, smart (and tidy) plots, action, and humor. The films can be deep and thoughtful at times, but really, I want to be entertained. Give me super-powered escapism and I’ll enjoy every minute of it.

Superman Returns screencaps are from Follow Tomorrow

Scroll to Top