And I absolutely hate that Carradine quote/speech about Superman beingborn Superman. Obviously he (or Tarrantino) never read "Man of Steel."Or if so, they missed the point.

________________________

It doesn't matter if he read Man of Steel. DC has changed everything about Superman and has completely ignored what Byrne did for Superman. So Tarantino can't be wrong .

I think he was raised in an orphanage originally.

**

From The Adventures of Superman:
"Yes, it's Superman - strange visitor from another planet who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. Superman - who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights the never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the American Way."

The old tv show intro certainly agrees with you, Ray.

I know I've posted this cover before:

When even his parents refer to him as "Superboy", and speak of his "identity of Clark Kent", it's not hard to conclude that Clark Kent is simply a disguise.

I've heard Tarantino do a riff on this Superman speech himself in interviews before,so I'm not convinced he's just having the villain spout something that we should all know as wrong (as was the case with Lex Luthor in JB's Superman #2).

Here's the speech itself and my issues with it:

An essential characteristic of the superhero mythology is, there's the superhero, and there's the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When he wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man.

Yes and when Superman wakes up, he's Clark Kent. And he has to put on a costume to become Superman.

 And it is in that characteristic that Superman stands alone. Superman did not become Superman, Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent.

How was he "born" Superman? Yes, he was born as man (or Kryptonian) with immense powers (or one that would soon develop them based on what version you're reading/watching). But he was raised Clark Kent. (And he's not basing this on the pre-Kents version of the character bc he mentions the Kents in the very next part).

His outfit with the big red "S", that's the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes.

What sense does that make?!  Based on  this logic, I am wearing a costume all the time bc I don't wear the blanket my parents wrapped me in!

What Kent wears, the glasses, the business suit, that's the costume.

Ok, sure, I'll say that the glasses and the mannerisms he adopts as adult Clark that works at the Daily Planet is a disguise. But again, that doesn't set Superman apart! How is that any different than Batman playing the superficial billionaire playboy?  That's just as much a disguise.

That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He's weak, he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race.

Uh no...when Superman does portray Clark in this manner, it's to make him seem as different as his alter ego as possible. So people don't put two and two together and discover his secret identity. NOT some kind of critique on humanity. That's never even been partially insinuated in any version of the character.

Sort of like Beatrix Kiddo and Mrs. Tommy Plympton.

Yes, yes, so clever Tarantino. This is just one of  those takes that is trying so hard to seem insightful and deep...but really isn't.

That's just your interpretation and back in the day backstories were just there to explain why the character has those abilities. Throw-away panels, if you want it that way. to get the action started. They weren't used to set up a psychological background. He had powers from the beginning and had to hide his true nature all the time. This wasn't JB revamp where he first gets his powers when he is way older.

The character was conceived to use "Clark Kent" as the disguise of the real identity. Blame Siegel. It was their little revenge fantasy and that gets totally turned on the head the moment you make Superman just a "job".

And the Kill Bill speech was based on a famous book analysis of superheroes.

But isn't that what we on the board complain all the time when it comes to other characters? Batman became a nutjob, Green Lantern a mass murderer, everyone became a flawed character but reversing Superman's basic concept is okay?