Originally posted by: Warbler
Either have the line in the movie correctly, or remove the whole line, but don't use a p.c. version. As for nonAmericans cringing, too bad. This is an American made movie, about an American Icon. I don't tell other countries how to make movies about their Icons, don't tell us how to make movies about ours.
Tell me, should we go back and cgi out the flag from this picture and instead add the flag of the UN just because it might offend nonAmericans?
Either have the line in the movie correctly, or remove the whole line, but don't use a p.c. version. As for nonAmericans cringing, too bad. This is an American made movie, about an American Icon. I don't tell other countries how to make movies about their Icons, don't tell us how to make movies about ours.
Tell me, should we go back and cgi out the flag from this picture and instead add the flag of the UN just because it might offend nonAmericans?
Some good points overall, Warbler, but I still disagree with a few things, which is fine. I too am of the persuasion that the line should either be included in its full capacity or not at all. It is weak to dilute it. HOWEVER, I am still of the persuasion that the line is no longer relevant to the post-Crisis Superman (I don't think any of those comic covers were from anything after the 70s, remembering that some were anniversary issues), and is regarded as much cheesy as it is classic amongst even American comic fans. I myself am a huge Superman fan - I think he is one of, if not THE most conceptually rich character in comics - but I do not consider the line to be absolutely essential to a Superman movie, much less a comic.
And I still stand by Superman being a Kryptonian above all things. This is what gives him the responsibility he has.
I would be careful about the whole it's-American-made-so-you-don't-have-a-say idea. This is a can of worms best left unopened (or discussed in another thread). If you extend it to the world of Star Wars (in that it was made by Americans), my opinions (or perhaps anyone's other than Lucas') on the Original Trilogy are redundant. The fact is, America is the only superpower and the dominant source of entertainment media. That is to say that many of America's icons are the world's as well. People from all over the world leave their home countries to 'make it big' in their respective arts in the U.S., so to say that Americans are the only ones that have contributed to the Superman mythos (let alone Hollywood, etc.) I think is a bit of a blanket statement.
HSVIJ, I think there's another approach to Superman out there, and that is that Superman is intrinsically Superman (or Kal-El) while Clark Kent is the alter-ego. But not just a shell - Clark Kent is the side of Superman that is an alien trying to live/fit in as a human amongst other humans. He is like the ultimate immigrant (like his Jewish creators), bringing his contributions to society as Superman. I don't think it's so much a case of one or the other, but merely what the writer wishes to spend his/her time/pages expositing a particular story (i.e. do I want to write a story about Superman, or do I want to write a story about Clark Kent?). I feel that the first two Superman movies were as much about Clark Kent as they were about Superman, and I'm sure the screen time reflects this.