Superman

[Fellfrosch]

So I finally got around to seeing Superman Returns, and have mixed opinions. It was well-enough made, I suppose, but it seemed really hollow--aside from beating us over the head with Christian symbolism, it didn't have anything to say. If Lois Lane writes a Pulitzer winning essay about why the world doesn't need Superman, I doggone want to know what it says; the comics have dealt with that subject quite a bit, and presented some intriguing arguments, but here the subjects gets frequently mentioned but never explored. Then at the end she starts to write about how the world really does need Superman, but stops--is that because she doesn't beleive it? Or can't express it? Has she been convinced or not? These are incredibly weighty issues: does the world need a savior? Why or why not? The movie has no idea, but it does have a cool shot of a bullet bouncing off Superman's eye. Yay.

As for Clark Kent, I can never look at him the same again after seeing Kill Bill 2, and being fascinated by the following bit of monologue:

"Now, a staple 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 that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. 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 Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. 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."

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

hrm
ignoring the ret-con issues (current canon has that the cape/costume were designed by ma kent using symbolism that came into the family through a native american ancestor),  i disagree only with it being a critique of the human race. He holds himself to a higher standard, but he believes in humanity. THat's what separates him from Bruce. Clark/Kal believes humanity just needs help to achieve greatness. Bruce/Bats believes that humanity needs protecting. Bruce is the one who thinks humanity is cowardly.

anyway, I disagree with your assessment. I think the only point of the pulitzer is that humanity reverted. Combine it with the other elements in the film. Jor-el says "They only need to be shown the way," which is Kal's job on earth as the last surviving Kryptonian. He abandons them, without notice, for half a decade. They lose their example, they lose their way, they wholeheartedly support a message that says they never needed it in the first place. Lois is the microcosm of humanity (not Clark).
As for *why* she can't continue with writing it, well, i think that's best left unsaid. You complain about the overt symbolism, but when something is left subtle or to your own thoughts, you complain too. Again, I say put it into context. She's not out of love with Supes. She nearly kissed him. She was the only one who could lead a rescue of him.  Now that he's not gone for good, how does she deal with that. Part of it is recognizing she was wrong, but she's not able to go back. Having established that she's the microcosm (Every woman was in love with him), this is how the world is dealing with it. We went for 5 years, but he does all this good stuff, do we need him? or not? We can't just pick up where we left off. what do we do? They don't know, thus Lois doesn't know what to write.

[Fellfrosch]

I'm not complaining because it's not spelled out for me, I'm complaining because that would have been a really interesting avenue to explore, and I'm sad that they didn't. The movie they chose to make is not the movie I ended up wanting to see, is I guess what I'm saying. It was kind of cool in parts, but could have gone in some different directions and been a lot more interesting (to me, at least). Also, I can't really believe that a Pulitzer-winning article was a simple case of sour grapes: "fine, he's gone, we didn't need him anyway." If it was worthy of Pulitzer I have to assume it had some ideas that I would want to hear.

Similar themes were broached in Kingdom Come, and much more ably to my thinking: Superman leaves, comes back, and people are not sure they want him back. The presence of a superhero to solve all our problems for us makes the concept of human achievement a moot point. They go so far as to launch nukes at Superman (and hundreds of other supers) as a last-ditch attempt to retain control of their own destinies, rather than surrender the world to super-human caretakers. In the movie, on the other hand, they just stand up and applaud and say "Yay, now Superman's here to solve our problems again."

I think that, more than anything, is the most damning commentary on the human race--Kal-El chose to make Clark passive instead of active, the kind of person who lets other people fix things, and for the most part that is what humanity does when Superman is around. I admit that Lois and her fiance go to great lengths to save Superman's life, and the movie makes a point about the fact that they're doing it because Superman has inspired them with his example, but I think you could take that same situation and apply to any other superhero. Someone could be inspired to save Batman's life, too. There is nothing in Superman's actions or words (at the least in the movie) that encourages other people to stand up for themselves--he doesn't teach them to fish, so to speak, he just does all the fishing and gets lucky when Lois pays enough attention to pick it up on her own. Regardless of what you say about the relative attitudes of Superman and Batman (one sees the world as something with potential, and the other sees the world as something that needs to be protected), their actual actions are the same in the end.

(Actually, I think you could make a really good case about how Batman sees and directly inspires more potential than Superman ever does, because Batman actively recruits helpers. In Batman Begins, Bruce starts a crusade against evil and gets a whole group of helpers on his "team": Alfred, the girl, Morgan Freeman, and Commissioner Gordon--sorry, I forget some of the names. He sees potential in them, and gives them the tools and the opportunity and the trust to realize that potential and make the world a better place. Batman is practically defined by that quality, constantly surrounding himself with Robins and Batgirls and Oracles and all kinds of allies. Superman is either a lone wolf or a member of the JLA, which is a team of pre-existing superheroes who unite by necessity rather than because Superman inspired them to greatness. Now I realize that this isn't a very fair comparison, because Superman spends most of his time fighting cosmic bad guys in a completely different league of danger, and Jimmy or Lois wouldn't be much help at all. Still, though, it's interesting to think about.)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Kingdom Come had a *lot*more time to handle the themes. I don't know that it's fair to say that a movie, which has about the length to cover 4-5 comic books reasonably, doesn't cover as many issues as a work that is roughly 20 times the length of a standard comic.

Anyway, it's arguable that the "show them to fish" rather than "lecture them about it" is much more effective. I personally don't like lessons I didn't ask for. I think if he were actively preaching, he'd turn away a lot of people that accept him with his actions. The fact that Lois and her man do the right thing shows that it works on some people.

You can talk about Bats recruiting helpers if you want, but the idea that it would translate into wanting to inspire people is at odds with his fundamental philosophy: *he* has to be the one that cleans it up, because no one else will. "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot," isn't Kal-El's mind set, is it? Batman constantly tells other supers to get out of his city, he works with a much smaller range of people, and in general doesn't trust his sidekicks: he has to have Robin forced on him more than once, he works with Huntress because he thinks she's dangerous and wants to keep her under control, etc.
Superman constantly recruits help too, and he uses his human behaviors as well. In the comics, *Clark* is the one that gets the pulitzer: for his interview that introduces Superman to the world. He uses scientists, law enforcement, etc. When he and Batman work together, Sueprman is the one who is much more likely to have sought out Batman. Superman is interested in team work. Batman is interested in being in control. There are more Superheroes in comics that take their lead from Superman (Steel, Supergirl, Superboy, et al) than Batman, and his counterparts tend to try to break away from his lead rather than use it as an ideal (Nightwing, Batgirl/Oracle, etc)

The "Yay, now Superman's here to solve our problems again" isn't entirely fair either. What problems does Superman fix? Problems that no one else is remotely capable of fixing: pushing vehicles back onto the road from bridges, throwing continents into space, preventing death and injury from explosion or falling debris, catching crashing airplanes...

I'd cheer too if someone could keep all the passengers on a full 747 from dying even though it was melting and heading for space.  It's not that we *have to have* superman to get beyond problems like that. It won't destroy the human race or put society on a self-destructive bender. But it *is* one less tragedy.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

This makes me think about the new Superman video game I just bought recently for my 360. I was telling my friend about it who's played the demo and thought it was too easy and would get boring after a while. Now, while he is in one way correct and it is kind of easy, it's still fun and intriguing. I mean, you're some super powerful being that can do just about anything. There's plenty that designers can do with that and plenty they can't do either. So wherein you don't really have a life meter, the city of Metropolis does, and by protecting the city you're protecting yourself.

Under the genre of comics however, these two figures, Batman and Superman, are the fathers of this genre. I'm sure there were maybe some kind of similar comics out there during the time, but they didn't make as big an impact as these two did. Between the Golden Age Batman collection I picked up and the Smallville television show I've been watching there's plenty of awesomeness between them.

I like Smallville because it's giving me insight into Clark's adolescense and how he grew to become who he is. The Golden Age Batman collection is also similar to Smallville, in the sense that I'm reading about how Batman had originally been set up by Bob Kane, and I can see where he's gone since then. From some crazy gritty Bat-crap crazy Frank Miller stuff, to awesome wolf-punching Batman in Wagner's Batman & the Mad Monk.

Of course, everyone's going to find some difference between one version and the other, and it probably didn't really help the new Superman movie too much to stick so closely to Donner's adaptation.

But I do see how Batman recruits people to help in his own crusade against crime, where Superman recruits people to help out the world and all around him. The Pre-Infinite Crisis arc's were interesting, especially the OMAC project; if not just to see how crazy Batman can really be and how he doesn't trust people, even his friends.

[Entsuropi]

"Now, a staple 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 that character wakes up in the morning, he's Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone. Superman didn't become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. 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 Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. 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."

Not seen superman myself, and I despised Superman 1 when I watched it earlier this year so I probably won't. But that assessment is wrong in one respect: Bruce Wayne is the alter ego for Batman. I'm told by a huge comics nerd (huge in his nerdity, not in his weight) that it's a consistent point of the comics, that all the relationships and activities of Bruce Wayne are entirely for show, just to cover the tracks of Batman. 

I can't wait for Batman 2. Whoever they get in to play the Joker has a fairly major task ahead of him.

[Eagle Prince]

I think you need to see the first two Superman movies before this, particularly Superman I and II.  There is a bit too much to mention it all, but lets say like after Supes stops the plane, then he says its still statistically the safest way to travel.  He says that same thing after saving Lois Lane from the falling helicopter in movie I.  Her fiance mentions an article she wrote 'I spent the night with Superman', again a reference to movie I (first article she ever wrote about Supes, ironically also it revealed to Lex his two main weaknesses- lead and kryptonite, although the second Lex had to puzzle out a bit).  Of course, Supes also became mortal for a short time and slept with Lois in Superman II.  Son becomes the Father speech all given originally in Superman I by Jor-El during Kal-El's training.  Perry White's speech about 'the story is Superman' is very similar to the one he originally gives in the first movie.  Maybe there is a list on the internet somewhere that says all of the references, anyway its enough to see my point I think.

One other thing, when Kal-El is getting his training (I think for 12 earth years, no idea how much time actually passed for Supes), Jor-El talks about why he needs a secret identity and why he can't let mankind become to dependant on him.

Anyone saw the new versions/cuts of Superman I and II?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Of course, Supes also became mortal for a short time and slept with Louis in Superman II.

Wow. I sure hope he slept with Lois, and not Louis, because that would be... awkward.

But yeah, recently I've watched the first three superman films (the third just for camp -- Superman takes on the evil forces of Richard Pryor, a computer, and ... HIMSELF; It would have been more interesting with Gene Wilder as Clark Kent...). The material's there, and with Singer acknowledging that he used Supes I and II as his inspiration, you can't take Returns out of the context of those two.

[Skar]

My problems with the film can pretty much be summarized by the line "Does he still believe in, you know, 'Truth, Justice and ... all that stuff?"

The film turned Supes into a pop-icon for the liberal media with ALL the cliches.    They brought the entire franchise down several notches in order to make it more acceptable to modern audiences instead of sticking with the ideal.

I haven't read comic books in years because I haven't had the money so I can't speak to what they've done with Supes in the comics. The movie may have been simply more of the same thing they've done in the comics, I don't know.  It was a vast disappointment to me to see the clean and pure characters I liked to look up to turned into simple humdrum everyday losers like me, one of whom happens to have superpowers.

[Fellfrosch]

I wouldn't say that Superman was turned into a humdrum loser in this one, but that's mostly because I don't think they did much with his character at all. Clark had very little dialogue, Supes had even less, and they were far more concerned with making him into a Christ figure than making him into a round character.

Man, I'm harping on that Christ thing a lot. Sorry. I didn't really dislike that aspect of the movie, it was just so in-your-face that Dawn and I started to laugh about it by the end. "Oh, and here's the crucifix, I've been waiting for that. Oh, and now he's dead for three days. Oh, and now he came back."

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

My problems with the film can pretty much be summarized by the line "Does he still believe in, you know, 'Truth, Justice and ... all that stuff?"

The film turned Supes into a pop-icon for the liberal media with ALL the cliches. They brought the entire franchise down several notches in order to make it more acceptable to modern audiences instead of sticking with the ideal.

I seriously don't get any of that, Skar.

[Skar]

I seriously don't get any of that, Skar.

No offense, but I didn't imagine you would.

[Skar]

I wouldn't say that Superman was turned into a humdrum loser in this one, but that's mostly because I don't think they did much with his character at all. Clark had very little dialogue, Supes had even less, and they were far more concerned with making him into a Christ figure than making him into a round character.

I think, having thought about it a little more, that perhaps what bugged me was Supe's lack of purpose.  In the film he seemed to be very reactive.  He didn't have a goal he was working towards, aside from the one that Lex gave him.  Once Lex appeared he had a goal, stop Lex.  But he never seemed to have a clear purpose beyond that.  "Stop random people from dying" is a purpose I suppose, but it's a nebulous and, in the end, unattainable one.

Christ on the other hand had a clear purpose.  Show people the one true path to God.  This superman was a muddled mess who didn't know what to do with himself.  And trying to make a generic Christ figure out of a superman who is thrashing about in a search for meaning seems self-defeating.

Deliberately leaving out the "...American way." part of the Truth and Justice quote is just a symptom of the whole problem with relativism.  Truth and Justice are ideal goals, but how do you get there?  Can you get there with any old "way"? I don't think so.  The world is chock full of examples of "way"s that don't cut it.  The American way used to be openly acknowledged as the best way to get to Truth and Justice.  Nowadays though it's popular to compare our government unfavorably with say, the government in Iran. 

This Superman film tried to turn a conflicted character who didn't know his place in the universe into a Christ figure.   I would have enjoyed a version of this film that focused on Supe's character rather than trying so hard to stuff him into a wrong-shaped container.

[Fellfrosch]

I believe that, overall, I can agree with that sentiment.

[Eagle Prince]

Doh, sorry about the wrong spelling.

In the first movie, Perry White says find out if he stands for truth, justice, and the American way.  In Returns, he says find out if he still stands for truth, justice... all that stuff.  Yeah it was dumb, yeah it was cliche to purposely hack out "American way".  Maybe their next target will be another of my old favorite superhero shows, the Greatest American hero to 'the Greatest... uh, Hero".

Yes there are some analogies to Christ, but they've always been there.  Don't forget everything Jor-El says is from the first movie.  Did Returns handle it as well as the original, I don't know.  Probably not.