I had a great conversation with a friend a few years ago, back when all the "cloning" talk was going on in the news (remember Dolly the sheep?). We joked that scientists should clone Arnold Schwarzenegger. You see, my friend and I grew up with Star Wars, 80's cartoons and of course, "Ahnuld". We owe our healthy imaginations and sense of well being to these things, and we deemed that every generation of male youths deserves Terminator, Commando and Predator films. But before you dismiss my "clone Arnold" story as simple childhood fantasies, think about Superman. That's exactly what they're doing. They're "cloning" him for new generations to discover for the first time. Every revamp, reboot, reimagining, re-whatever-you-want-to-call-it that they put Superman and the DC Universe through, it's a fresh start for a new era. The past is not prologue; the past is inconsequential. What came before was just a dream, it never happened, ignore it. "It's a brand new, landmark #1 issue! A great time for new readers to jump onboard!" And it's happening again.

As of this writing, Mark Waid and Leinil Francis Yu's Superman: Birthright is on the minds of comic fans everywhere, what with the recent proclamation that the story is becoming official "canon". Me, I'm not worried. First of all, I wouldn't put too much faith in anything Mark Waid has to say -- I still take Alex Ross' side on the whole "Kingdom" debacle. But even if "Birthright" is considered the new, true story for the Man of Steel, who cares? Five years ago I may have pounded my fist on my desk and shouted profanities at invisible DC phantoms for setting in motion yet another DC reboot. I've finally started to make sense of this crazy universe, and now you're telling me to once again forget everything that's happened? Only now, in my old age do I say "meh" to that. And I'll tell you why. I've realized Superman must be recycled, it's by his design. He's a product, much like an automobile or a piece of computer software. He needs to be occasionally upgraded lest we allow time to pass him by. It's the same way with Ian Fleming's "James Bond: 007". And is that so wrong? This doesn't mean we can't cherish the stories we grew up with. It also doesn't mean we have to dread every revamp that comes our way. It means we must learn to accept a character's natural development. "Birthright" is just another chapter in one hero's epic journey.

I've recently had an epiphany regarding fiction and continuity, and the ultimate conclusion I've reached is that there is no "official" origin for Superman, contrary to whatever the suits at DC say. I came about this reasoning as a way to make myself accept Pierce Brosnan's "007". I like Pierce's portrayal of James Bond, but I'm one of the many who loved Sean Connery's the most. Confession time: I didn't grow up with Connery's Bond. As a matter of fact, I didn't grow up with any Bond. I was aware of the franchise at an early age, but I didn't really invest any time exploring the series until that stagnant period shortly after Timothy Dalton left the role and just before Brosnan took over. In all honesty I can't even remember the first Bond film I ever saw. If I had to guess, I'd say it was either For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights, neither of which was even a Connery film.

The main problem I've had with the current Bond adventures is that they lack the continuing threat, the ever-present evil that Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.R.E brought to the Connery/Lazenby/Moore films. In the old days, each film was only a temporary victory for Commander Bond, and likewise a temporary setback for the villains. Blofeld was always out there, licking his wounds and you knew eventually, he'd be back. I found myself disliking the current Bond films for these reasons; they were blockbuster action flicks, with no real danger. They became almost parodies of themselves. Sexy chicks, cool gadgets and fast cars just for the sake of those things. The flesh was willing, but the spirit was dead (or dying at least). As with comic books, Bond's continuity was becoming jumbled. Were all the movies still canon? Was Bond still a widower? The World is Not Enough had a nice bit of dialogue alluding to Bond's slain wife, which I greatly appreciated, but for the most part the recent films lacked a sense of wholeness. They lacked a "heart".

All this changed recently with the stellar James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing videogame. Here is a Bond story, a current Bond story that embraces everything about Bond, his past AND present. To see Brosnan's Bond (voice and appearance) acknowledging the events of 1985's A View to a Kill made me giddy. And if you've ever wanted to see Richard Kiel's sinister Jaws throttle Pierce Brosnan like he was a rag doll, now is your chance. Trust me, it's every bit as satisfying as you could imagine.

Because of this video game, I now have a greater appreciation for the franchise as a whole. All these actors are simply that: actors. They are giving their own unique (but familiar) interpretation of a fictional character. Once Brosnan steps down, I can promise you that I will embrace the new James Bond actor, whether it be Ewan McGregor (a great choice), Heath Ledger (a terrible choice), or some other young pretty boy, because in the end it makes little difference who becomes the new 007. They're just actors, fleshing out a role that will outlive them all. Bond has survived so much, and he will continue to survive throughout 21th century and beyond. He has to survive, because he's that damn good.

This is similar to Star Wars "Expanded Universe" material. Who cares if George Lucas says only the films are canon? I sure don't. I accept the Tales of the Jedi comic series as every bit as real as The Empire Strikes Back film. Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Leia Organa? They're no more "real" than Qu Rahn, Ulic Qel-Droma and Empatojayos Brand. And if you're a Star Wars fan and those last three names are unfamiliar to you, then you're missing out on some great stories. And if you're one of those Star Wars purists that only accepts the films, then I pity you for not being more open-minded. The Star Wars universe is much bigger than six films.

The truth be damned, no matter what the writers or suits say, Superman and the rest of these characters are what you make of them. You want to accept Byrne's retelling? Have at it. You want to embrace "Birthright"? Knock yourself out. There is no one true vision of the Man of Steel. They are all myths about a supremely mythic figure. They're all stories. It's all FICTION.

Ask yourself; why can't Siegel & Shuster's Superman, as well as Curt Swan's, John Byrne's and Mark Waid's Superman all occupy slightly skewed versions of the same universe -- why can't they be about the SAME guy? For example, let's pretend that we don't know what the REAL Superman looks like, or the real James Bond; We don't know exactly how they act or talk or behave, we just have rumors and hearsay. This would make all Supermans valid. Why can't we embrace the variety of the many different takes on Superman? He's a fictional character, not some real guy we can interview for the "true story". There are no eyewitnesses who saw him perform extraordinary feats, no aging friends and loved ones that can share memories of first-hand experiences with the man himself. He's a figment of a collective imagination, nothing more.

There was talk a while back, when the Star Trek franchise still had life in it, about a possible "prequel" to the Original Series, highlighting the adventures of a young James T. Kirk. We'd learn how he got through the academy, joined Starfleet, became an Ensign and eventually met Spock and McCoy. Many Star Trek fans were horrified by this idea; no actor could hope to fill William Shatner's shoes, they said. It would cheapen the legend of Kirk, Spock and Bones to see them as weak and inexperienced "kids". These guys are our heroes for Christ's sake, they saved the galaxy!

I'm aware that some of the Trek novels have touched upon this time period, but even still, I'd love to see the evolution of Kirk brought to the small screen. To see the bookworm that Kirk was as a young man, absorbed with his studies, so different from the leader he would one day become. Perhaps the stoic Spock was responsible for bringing Kirk out of his shell. Wouldn't that be a treat? Imagine, a Vulcan teaching a human how to live life to the fullest. And a friendship was born...

What's the point of this? The point is that Captain Kirk is a fictional character, a role that William Shatner, an actor, performed. Kirk can be, and perhaps SHOULD BE revisited. Whether it would become a good show or a bad show is inconsequential, because a "Star Trek: The Early Years" series would not take away from the franchise. No, if anything it would ADD to it. And love it or hate it, "Birthright" adds to the Superman mythos. It doesn't change anything, regardless of what Mark Waid, Dan DiDio or the next guy says.

Who knows, this change in perspective may allow me to finally appreciate Brian Michael Bendis' "Spider-Man", or even the WB's Smallville. Eh...maybe not that last one, but hope keeps me going.