|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 6, 2009 16:38:40 GMT -5
A poll would be very interesting..
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 6, 2009 16:41:38 GMT -5
If Krypton didn't explode, then there'd be no need to send Kal-El to Earth.
If they did send Kal-El to Earth anyway, then there's no reason why he couldn't just fly back to Krypton.
In effect, that's like sending Moses down the river when there was no decree to kill any babies.
|
|
Legsy
New Member
Alright, alright, alright...
Posts: 15,339
|
Post by Legsy on Mar 6, 2009 16:42:00 GMT -5
There's something very familiar about your writing style. It's very Drewish.
Anyhoo, you make some excellent valid points. I was very against the Abrams script because of Krypton not going boom and Lex being a Kryptonian himself. But the points you make are quite valid.
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 6, 2009 16:43:46 GMT -5
Yes, because one of the most interesting things about Superman thematically is that the death of one world gave us the savior of another.
Ties back into MANY myths and stories. Some civilizations ARE famous because of their fall. Its not a new concept. Its a little life lesson, a parable and science fiction warning all rolled into one. Rome fell because of corruption. Sodom and Gomorrah did because of the same. Perhaps Krypton fell because of greed, stubbornness, unwillingness to change? It happens over and over in stories.
Thats why Superman's story resonates across the decades. Its the Atlantis of Modern myth.
It also gives another dimension to Superman himself. He couldn't save the place of his origins so does that make him fight that much harder to protect this planet?
Sometimes the questions are more interesting than the answers and if you take away the destruction of Krypton you take away those complex questions.
The destruction of Krypton operates on many more levels beyond what we simply see on screen or in a panel. Its Greek tragedy on the HIGHEST most cosmic level imaginable.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 6, 2009 16:44:42 GMT -5
If Krypton didn't explode, then there'd be no need to send Kal-El to Earth. If they did send Kal-El to Earth anyway, then there's no reason why he couldn't just fly back to Krypton. In effect, that's like sending Moses down the river when there was no decree to kill any babies. Exactly! It's canon. |
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Mar 6, 2009 16:51:14 GMT -5
Well I think they could change a whole bunch of things as long as they stay true to the SPIRIT of the character. Obviously, the more deviations you make from the established myth the harder it is to maintain that truthful spirit but it IS indeed possible.
I thought SR missed the spirit of the character because they tried to be faithful to someone elses interpretation of the character rather than making their own (and failed at it to boot!)
I want to see another director and writer come up with their own Superman interpreatation just like Donner did... if for instance their version of Krypton doesn't explode it would be okay with me (and even preferable if it served the story in a substantial way)
It's like the Joker in the Dark Knight; everyone knew that the Joker character fell into a vat of acid and had his skin bleached. But Nolan's story dictated that Joker wear make up. You could say that this isn't being true to the source material but in the context of Nolans film it worked! Same with something like Krypton exploding... change it only if your spiritually truthful version of the Superman myth requires that deviation.
Of course, there are certain pillars of the myth that must be adhered to; pull down to many for the sake of the "bigger picture" can result in the whole thing collapsing. You gotta choose between what you are gonna keep and what you are gonna change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Valentine Smith on Mar 6, 2009 20:21:18 GMT -5
I'd have a tough time accepting a Krypton that doesn't explode. A good chunk of what makes Superman who he is, is the idea that he can save US, but he can never save HIS people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jimbo on Mar 6, 2009 22:43:26 GMT -5
Superman without the destruction of Krypton would be like Batman without the deaths of Bruce's parents.
With no catalyst, there is no story, period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Mar 6, 2009 22:51:44 GMT -5
If Krypton didn't explode, then there'd be no need to send Kal-El to Earth. If they did send Kal-El to Earth anyway, then there's no reason why he couldn't just fly back to Krypton. In effect, that's like sending Moses down the river when there was no decree to kill any babies. beautiful. excellent analogy. terrific use of biblical subtext. jor-l5150 is very proud...  |
|
|
|
Post by Jor-L5150 on Mar 6, 2009 22:52:11 GMT -5
There's something very familiar about your writing style. It's very Drewish.Anyhoo, you make some excellent valid points. I was very against the Abrams script because of Krypton not going boom and Lex being a Kryptonian himself. But the points you make are quite valid. detective 'legs ....on duty. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt in the Hat on Mar 6, 2009 23:37:43 GMT -5
There's something very familiar about your writing style. It's very Drewish. Funny. He doesn't look Drewish! |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 7, 2009 1:12:08 GMT -5
You should go by your old screen name again.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Mar 7, 2009 2:04:38 GMT -5
Well... what if the first-borns on Krypton were being slaughtered by General Zod and Jor-El sent his only son to Earth to save him?
OR- I suspect that if there really was a Superman he would have no idea about his origins... why he came here/ who sent him/ for what reason.... he would never know. The great question he asks "Who am I?" would have to be answered by virtue of the man he becomes on earth.
There are certain mysteries surrounding why anyone is here... what exactly life is and what purpose does it serve... who are we really? Leave Superman's origin a mystery to himself and the audience as well.
Part of Superman's journey could be his path to self discovery. Like in STM when Jonathan Kent was talking to Clark about how he is here for a reason even though he could not provide Clark with concrete answers I thought that kind of scene was much more powerful and applicable to real life rather than Jor-El simply explaining why Kal El is on earth... the great mystery is then gone and nothing is left to the imagination. Rarely in life does someone give us all the answers... most stuff we will never really know.
|
|
|
|
Post by belloq on Mar 7, 2009 2:09:19 GMT -5
If Krypton didn't explode, then there'd be no need to send Kal-El to Earth. If they did send Kal-El to Earth anyway, then there's no reason why he couldn't just fly back to Krypton. In effect, that's like sending Moses down the river when there was no decree to kill any babies.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2009 14:51:26 GMT -5
JorEl sending KalEl to Earth to save his life is what begins the whole ethos of Superman. Saving lives. Caring. Goodness.
JorEl sending KalEl to Earth just for kicks or conquering or whatever lessens the entire mythology and mysticism of Superman.
|
|
|
|
Post by crazy_asian_man on Mar 7, 2009 21:26:35 GMT -5
Great thread, great discussions here!
Personally, the destruction of the entire planet is key to the Superman mythology, and, to me, helps explain Superman's inherent goodness--- he's got the proper perspective on things- he KNOWS how fragile life can be, as his entire race (as he knew it) was made extinct.
Geoff Johns (as usual) did something genius and respected that part of Superman's origin--- but--- also used Kandor as a way of getting to some of the 'cool stuff' of having Superman interacting with other Kryptonians ((*recently in the current comics)) WITHOUT sacrificing Superman's growing up with the knowledge and certainty that his homeworld was completely destroyed, ((I'm fine with survivors in Kandor, as it was in the Silver Age comix)).
The Abrams' script idea would have offered some cool interactions with other Kryptonians, but at the cost of part of Superman's core identity. Geoff Johns gets the cool stuff, but did it in a way that kept what was great about Superman's origins in the first place.
For my two cents, getting rid of Krypton exploding is like getting rid of Batman's parents getting murdered. You could do it in a reboot, but it's already making it so different that you might as well call it something else other than Superman (or Batman, for that matter).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2009 22:17:00 GMT -5
Exactly.
Changing the origin drastically changes the character to the point of it being a better idea to just create a new character.
|
|
|
|
Post by stargazer01 on Mar 8, 2009 1:29:09 GMT -5
^^Perfectly said, guys. The End.  |
|
|
|
Post by fggafagas on Mar 8, 2009 5:40:59 GMT -5
Nothing is necessary with the general public, though I do think some would be baffled if they changed Superman too much. He's too well known a character for certain differences to go unnoticed even by non-fans.
The Abrams story, to me, seems to make the whole thing about some Kryptonian war and takes focus off the basic premise of the character. It truly could be the background of an entirely new character. I mean, does an alien hero who wears a living suit that gives him powers and is prophecized to bring peace to his war torn homeworld sound ANYTHING like Superman, or does it sound more like a character vaguely inspired by Superman?
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Mar 8, 2009 18:24:56 GMT -5
Maybe Krypton has too much CO2 emissions and gets the greenhouse effect. All of Krypton's glaciers melt and the planet is flooded. Al Gore could direct!
|
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 8, 2009 19:43:51 GMT -5
the end
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Mar 9, 2009 15:20:39 GMT -5
I AM NOT A TROLL... YOU GUYS TROLL ME ON EVERY TOPIC I MAKE AND TALK ABOUT RANDOM STUFF!!!  buttt................... oh you guys.... sorry if I ruined your dialogue  .... I'll play ball In SR Krypton might as well have NOT been destroyed anyway. Just explain Superman's five years absence by saying he was hangin with his hommies on Krypton, or just visiting the fam. There would be ZERO change to the story if this was the case and that's why SR sucked... because they set the story in a universe where Krypton hadn't been destoyed really... Superman went there on a 5 year visit....destroyed...intact...survivors...whatever.. no difference. God that film was garbage on celluloid.... So I agree that Krypton haviung been DESTROYED is optimal for a Superman movie... but you CAN change that and still have a Superman movie. Consider this isn't it also a part of the Superman mythos that Kal-El is the LAST survivor of Krypton?? Well, Donner changed that in SII with Zod and Co. but the story still worked! In SR they also essentially changed the story having a Krypton that Superman could go back to... destroyed or not... but THEY did not have the story telling abilities to make changing the myth work like Donner did. |
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Mar 11, 2009 15:24:13 GMT -5
Wrong as usual downwithrouth...  I know you have an encyclopedic knowledge about Superman (I'll bet you have over 100 comic books  ) but you good sir, are wrong. It IS diluting the myth of Superman being the last son of Krypton if you have there be other survivors. Why not go a step further and say that EVERYONE on Krypton survived the explosion and evacuated the planet? Wouldn't that be essentially the same as Krypton NOT exploding? And regarding SR, I meant to explain that the plot device to explain Superman's absence and the way it was executed would be akin to still having Krypton around. Superman leaves to visit his homeworld... he comes back and says the place was a graveyard but he could have said "things are fine at home I just decided to come back" and the story would not be changed at all! Do you really want to know what the spirit of Superman is downwithrouth? Even though everyone has different tastes and different interpretations of the character; to one person he is 'the last son of Krypton'... to another is is just 'a friend from another star' and to some he is a 'bad-ass mo fo in a cape" the overall spirit is that of an alien who comes to Earth who inspires the best in people. |
|
Metallo
New Member
The worlds finest heroes
Posts: 17,075
|
Post by Metallo on Mar 11, 2009 15:28:59 GMT -5
You really don't understand what you're talking about. FAIL.
|
|
|
|
Post by adam15 on Mar 11, 2009 17:58:31 GMT -5
Maybe it's too complex for you to comprehend yes? |
|
I know you have an encyclopedic knowledge about Superman (I'll bet you have over 100 comic books 
) but you good sir, are wrong. 