Who Can Save Superman?
Posted by Paul Christian Glenn on July 3, 2008
ComingSoon.net has posted some interesting news about the development of the next Superman movie. Comic book writer Mark Millar (Wanted) has been spouting off recently about approaching Warner Brothers with a cinematic re-invention of the world’s most famous superhero. It seemed odd, given that only a couple months ago Bryan Singer confirmed he was developing a sequel to Superman Returns. Nevertheless, Millar apparently has a big-time director and producer in his corner, and he’s talking somewhat confidently about a 2011 release date. Hey, Bryan, when you read this, could you drop me a line so we can get it all straightened out? Thanks.
Millar’s take is apparently a reinvention of the character, so we can assume he wouldn’t be picking up Singer’s continuity, and even though Superman Returns was pretty awful, that seems like a shame. Do we really want to live in a world where conceived franchises are abandoned part-way through and restarted from scratch? I guess The Incredible Hulk may have started the trend (if a trend it is), but at least Ang Lee’s first Hulk movie told a complete story. Superman Returns felt very much like the first act of a multi-part story, and that’s partially why it didn’t hang together very well.
So, what did and didn’t work in Superman Returns, and could that continuity be saved?
THE GOOD
1. Kickin’ It Old School. Despite a couple cringeworthy installments, the Christopher Reeves movies are fondly remembered, and Singer deserves props for resisting the urge to re-invent the world established by Richard Donner. Nobody wanted to see Superman sporting black leather, or the Daily Planet transformed into a multi-media website, or Lois Lane re-imagined as a scrappy Sudanese refugee. Speaking for a couple generations who grew up on those old movies, we’ll take our icons intact, thank you. On that front, Singer delivered. In fact, the most thrilling part of Superman Returns was the nostalgic opening credit sequence (faint praise, maybe, but true).
2. Brandon Routh. This poor guy took a lot of flack for not being Christopher Reeves reincarnated, but Routh did a bang-up job as Clark Kent. He was less memorable as Supes, but that was a direct result of the problematic script (see below). I’d like to see Routh get another shot at the character.
3. Lonely at the Top Syndrome. Call me a sucker, but I love all that junk about mankind crying out for a savior, and the lonely figure hovering forlornly over a world that is not his own. Singer explored the “last son of Krypton” angle in a melancholy way the earlier movies only hinted at. Not only did it lend a little complexity to the character, it made Superman sympathetic without giving him a weakness (a neat trick).
THE BAD
1. Reversing the Crush. An entire post could be devoted to this subject, with all sorts of caveats tacked on, but I’m going to boil it down to the essence. The traditional arrangement has Lois pining for the Man of Steel, and him unable to reciprocate. Reversing this arrangement was a huge error, emasculating a hero defined by his masculinity. Having him mope around like some emo-afflicted schoolboy only worsened things.
2. Inaction Comics. It’s a common complaint, but there simply wasn’t enough POW! in this flick. We all kept waiting for Superman to get his smack on, and instead he wandered around like an overqualified tour guide setting up various plotlines. The most exciting sequence occurred early on (saving the space shuttle), and after that… nut ‘n’ honey.
3. Killing Me Softly. This pretty much follows on #2, but why do Superman movies tend toward such mundane villains? Here we have the most powerful hero in all of comicdom, and his nemeses are always embroiled in real-estate chicanery, bank fraud, and political skullduggery. With the exception of the pretty-good Superman II and the execrable Superman IV, cinematic Superman has never faced anyone who could give him a run for his money.
4. Silly, the Kid. Perhaps the most compelling reason to continue Singer’s franchise is to find out what the hell they were thinking when they introduced Superbaby. There had to be a reason, and the only good one I can think of involves a bloody little corpse.
So there you have it. The bad doesn’t outweigh the good by all that much, and a smart writer could easily rectify all the problems in a sequel that continued Singer’s franchise.
My vote? Back off, Millar. Singer may have stumbled with the first installment, but the guy has shown he can bring good stuff to the table. Wait it out and let’s see where he’s going.
thomwade said
I also felt the final action sequence where Superman flies through the city was solid. But yet another Luthor Land grab? Yawn.
I felt the right choice would have been to reboot. No baggage. Set it a few months after Superman’s “debut”. Have Lex Luthor be the richest man in Gotham who gets his Superman hate on at first out of the fact that Superman will not be bought. Have Lex be primarily in the background-bankrolling a more physical threat to Superman…Metallo, for instance. I am certainly borrowing liberally from John Byrne’s 1986 reboot…but it was a great version of Superman.
A reboot hardly means you have to darken Superman up…he;s still the kid from Kansas. Keep his parents around as his stabilizing force. Batman Begins stuck closer to the core ideas of Batman than the previous film incarnations…I can’t see why “Superman Begins” could not have been the same. Plus, starting over would have made Kate Bosworth far easier to buy as Lois.
If the studio had mandated continuing the Donner series I would have:
1. No five year absence. The end of Superman II has the man of steel declare he will never leave Earth in the lurch again. That means not running away for five years.
2. No kid. Frankly, how did Lois rationalize a pregnancy when she doesn’t recall dating Superman-let alone jumping in the sack with him(a mistake in the Donner film).
3. Lex Luthor in the background. no land grab. Luthor spends the movie in prison. Adapt Grant Morrison’s All Star Superman # 5 into a story sequence. In that comic, Clark Kent interviews Lex Luthor in prison. Luthor keeps going on and on about how he transformed the prison and the inmates worship him…all while Clark has to keep trying to stop Luthor’s fellow inmates from trying to kill him. Clark has to defend Luthor-all while trying not to reveal his identity. It would have allowed a few minutes of great comedy and fun action. Spacey could have really chewed the scenery with that. Maybe show Luthor as having a pen pal…an old lady…and towards the end of the film, we see Luthor being released from jail.
4. A tough, physically imposing villain. Metallo…the Parasite…SOMEBODY.
I agree that Millar needs to back down. He’s got some solid ideas (Red Son-Superman lands in Russia as a baby and is raised as a great symbol of communist strength-is fantastic)… but I want Singer to have a shot to correct course. He is talented enough to do it.
petertchattaway said
Kate Bosworth… now *there* was an ill-advised casting decision. A woman in her mid-20s is supposed to be the 10-years-later version of a character who was originally played by a woman in her 30s? A woman in her mid-20s is supposed to be the mother of an 8- or 9- or 10-year-old boy — someone she would have had to conceive in her teens — while at the same time she is *also* supposed to be a Pulitzer-winning journalist at the peak of her profession? Puh-leeze. Puh-LEEZE.
I’m not sure it was such a bad idea to have Superman pining for Lois rather than vice versa, though. The first two Superman movies were entirely predicated on the notion that Clark/Superman was going through a delayed phase of adolescent rebellion, bucking the will of his parents because he had fallen for one of the hottest girls in class (or the workplace, as the case may be). His continued longing for Lois in Singer’s film was just an extension of that.
Johne Cook said
I have a hard time getting into characters so powerful that the writers have to go through conniptions just to balance out their powers, Superman, the Hulk. I prefer characters a little more human, who I can relate to, like Spider-Man (with his relationship troubles) and BatMan (emphasis on detective work).
tinakinz said
Superbaby? Wow. Anyway, Paul you know how I feel about comic book movies that AREN’T Batman. And so what I’m about to say shouldn’t come as a complete shock to you. They’re stupid. That’s all I can say.
Johne Cook said
If you want stupid, just look at Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin.
If you want entertaining, look at X-Men, X2, Hellboy, Spider-Man 1 or 2, and my personal favorite, The Incredibles. I’ve thought Mask of Zorro might be in there (because if Batman is a superhero, why not Zorro?) but I’ll understand if I’m the only one who thinks that.
petertchattaway said
I’ve always thought the first Tim Burton Batman film was stupid, too. It was especially disappointing after reading the intricately-plotted and psychologically-interesting three-part storyline that screenwriter Sam Hamm had written for Detective Comics #598 to #600. I lay all the blame squarely at Tim Burton’s feet.
Tinakinz said
You know, I just don’t care. Batman is the greatest superhero because he is just a man, not a mutated form of a man, not a man from another planet, simply a man. He gets his strength from his intelligence, designing weapons to capture criminals. If I could stick my tongue out at you via interwebs I would, this will just have to suffice
Peter T Chattaway said
Luckily for all of us, Chris Nolan has come along to prove that Batman is, indeed, the greatest superhero on the big screen. But all those others films?
Peter T Chattaway said
Okay, apparently, if I put the word “shiver” between pointed brackets, it vanishes altogether. So just imagine that I said “shiver” at the end of my last post, but with pointed brackets instead of quote marks.
Johne Cook said
Tina, you’re making my “Zorro should be a superhero, too” argument for me.
But then you also have to include Robin Hood and the Scarlet Pimpernel and Ivanhoe…
I jest. Robin Hood is a hero, but not a superhero. Batman is clearly a superhero, but why not Zorro? Perhaps because he’s not from the comic book tradition. Maybe Superheroes have to have started in the comics.
At any rate, I am grateful that Chris Nolan has resurrected the Batman franchise, and I can’t wait for The Dark Knight. With that said, the further we get from Christopher Reeve as Superman, the more impressed I am with him and his portrayal.
petertchattaway said
Oh my, yes. The Superman *films* are goofy on a number of levels, and not always in a good way, but Christopher Reeve’s dual *performance* was masterful.
Johne Cook said
Sounds like Christian Bale isn’t a fan of the earlier Batman films either:
Tinakinz said
I don’t think Zorro should be considered a superhero and I’ll tell you why. He’s /mexican/. I’m just kidding! Zorro seems to be too primitive to be a superhero, and this is probably just modern day thinking here. The man has a sword, a horse, and a mask. I’m not all brushed up on my superheroes outside of Batman but I’m pretty sure none of them used weapons. They all either had some sort of super ability to stop the bad guys, or in Batman’s case he used gadgets and fancy footwork. No one was killed, they were simply defeated and retreated. Though, I could totally be wrong.
thomwade said
None of them. Except Green Arrow, Black Knight, the Shining Knight,Hawkeye and Nightcrawler to name a few. It’s not really that uncommon for superheroes to use a weapon in their crime fighting.
Tinakinz said
And yet all those names that you mentioned mean nothing to me
I prefer superheroes who use their wits, and/or super abilities. Anyone can swing a sword, or whathaveyou.
river said
some thoughts …
i wouldn’t describe superman returns as “pretty awful” but agree that it doesn’t quite work for some of the reasons you mentioned. like petertchattaway, i’m not convinced it was a poor choice to reverse the superman/lois relationship. routh’s superman did seem a bit emasculated but i think it was due to his performance, not his relationship with lois. reeves was simply phenomenal at being able to go from bumbling dork to man of steel. his two character creations don’t resemble one another in the slightest. routh simply wasn’t able to display that disparity to the same extent. but hey, overall i thought he did a decent job.
oh, and yes, kate bosworth takes the cake as the worst casting decision in my recent memory.
as long as singer is developing a sequel that doesn’t include lex luthor, i’m all for him getting another shot. i believe lex has had more than enough screen time. i’m with thomwade … give us somebody. i’ve never read superman comics (marvel guy, with the exception of batman) but surely in the hundreds of books that exist, there’s a villain NOT named lex luthor.
sure, anyone can swing a sword. and anyone can swing a bat or paint a picture or write a book. doing any one of those things well, however, is an entirely different matter. i used to fence and any man who can slice a “Z” into someone’s attire without breaking skin is a superhero in my book.
chris nolan and christian bale are saviors and should be prayed to daily.
petertchattaway said
Yes, it is ridiculous that, out of five Superman movies, *four* of them feature Lex Luthor himself, and the fifth features essentially a Luthor clone (he’s wealthy, he’s haughty, and he’s surrounded by klutzy bimbos and/or assistants, just like the Luthor of the movies).
The first two movies at least got their villains from the comic books, even if they drastically rewrote them in some ways. And every Batman movie has taken its villains from the comic books, even if they drastically rewrote them in some ways.
But for a character with a history and a tradition as long as Superman’s, it is simply unconscionable that the third, fourth and fifth Superman movies should have ignored the comics altogether and invented bogus movie-only villains like Ross Webster and Nuclear Man, instead of bringing comic-book villains like Brainiac or Metallo, etc., etc. to big-screen life.
Paul Christian Glenn said
Aside from being too young (which, of course, she can’t help), Kate Bosworth did a fine job with the part of Lois Lane. I agree, however, that it was a poor casting decision.
As for Superman’s crush, the key difference between the old films and the new one is that Lois is unable/unwilling to reciprocate. It’s one thing for Superman to be enamored with Lois, so long as she feels the same way. It’s a different story completely when she’s dissin’ the guy. And it’s even worse when he moons around outside her house, spying on her and and her fiance.
When Superman gave up his powers and bucked his parents’ wisdom to be with Lois, he was, in a sense, affirming his masculinity. Our boy wasn’t just a neutered icon, he was a *man,* and he had a man’s needs. (That journey, of course, was completed when he ultimately gave up his selfish desires in order to fulfill his destiny). The new arrangement had quite the opposite effect, reducing him from a man to a lovesick boy, who followed the disinterested girl around like a puppy dog.
Finally, if Singer’s sequel does survive, I’m sure Luthor will be in it (they’ve got an multiple Oscar winner in the role, after all), and that wouldn’t bother me, provided he was a supporting villain, a la Thom’s scenario.
Regarding the first “Batman” movie, Peter and I have gone ’round about it before. I still call it a classic, and I’m pretty sure I even like it better than “Batman Begins.” Yes, it’s a far more stylized vision, and not as psychologically complex, but it was much more iconic. As terrific as “Batman Begins” was, it doesn’t have the same quotability or visual flair that Burton’s first film did. Too bad all the sequels sucked.
Is Zorro a superhero? Well, if Batman is, then you gotta say yes. He has a costume, a secret lair, a secret identity, a fanciful animal-derived name, and he’s a vigilante. What else does a superhero need?
thomwade said
Well, I think Keaton was the best Bruce Wayne of the first four features…Keaton played Wayne as a distracted guy…like it was an act played by Batman…and Bats was bored. It was a nice touch. I would take Batman Begins over the first Burton Batman story though…if only because they had such a strong cast (seriously…Gary Oldman really defined Gordon…and he made it seem like he walked out of Year One). Bale’s “bat” voice is a bit silly, but overall, he did a smashing job.
With Batman and Superman, I like the basic approach of they are polar opposites. Not just in the way of powers…but that Bruce Wayne is an act Batman puts on…he’s really Batman, he puts on the disguise of Bruce Wayne. Superman, on the other hand, is the disguise Clark Kent wears…but when it comes down to it…he’s Clark Kent and dresses up as Superman.
petertchattaway said
Since you mentioned Superman’s “destiny”, Paul, I just have to point out one other problem with Singer’s film: Namely, it is predicated on the notion that, immediately following the events of Superman II, Superman left the planet — and did not come back for about a decade.
Now, wait a minute, wasn’t the whole *point* of Superman II that Superman, like Jesus in The Last Temptation of Christ, had to forsake his personal desires and turn back the block and accept his duty to the people of this planet? Wasn’t the whole *point* of that film that Superman could not afford to take any holidays from his mission on Earth? So what’s he doing learning his lesson and then immediately ignoring it all over again?
As for Tim Burton’s first film, I agree it’s an iconic *Joker* movie. But an iconic *Batman* movie? Pfeh. And of course, unlike Batman Begins, it had nothing to do with the comics, so who cares how iconic it is, eh?
Paul Christian Glenn said
Oh, and beloved, I hate to tell you, but there’s no reason a superhero can’t carry a weapon. If you think about it, even superpowered heroes are using “weapons” of some sort–whether it’s heat beams from their eyes, energy blasts from their hands, etc.
In point of fact, I would almost say Batman *isn’t* a superhero, in the strictest sense. After all, he did get his start in “Detective Comics.”
Paul Christian Glenn said
@ Peter
Yeah, Superman’s absence was a gaping discrepancy in the narrative between Lester’s and Singer’s films. I imagine it was the writer’s way of achieving a “soft reboot,” but it did ignore a pretty important character arc from the second film. As Thom noted, Supes even makes a little speech about it at the end of “Superman II.”
As for Batman, yeah, Nicholson kinda stole the movie from Keaton, but I still think Batman got his memorable moments. “I want you to tell your friends about me,” crashing through the ceiling with his “wings” spread wide, etc.
Hmm. Now that I think about it, perhaps it was Bruce Wayne who had better moments than Batman. When I think about that movie, I think about Bruce Wayne, mouthing “I’m Batman” behind Vicky’s back, “I’ve gotta go to work,” etc.
Johne Cook said
Christopher Reeve’s Superman seems fresher than Tim Burton’s Batman to me. It remains to be seen how well Batman Begins stands the test of time, but as much as like Keaton, he and Burton’s Batman strikes me more like Ang Lee’s Hulk – an interesting take, but hardly canonic.
petertchattaway said
I just noticed that I said Jesus and Superman “turned back the block”. I meant to say “turned back the *clock*”, of course. Oops.
Re: the gaping discrepancy between the Donner/Lester and Singer films. On one level, yeah, it’s partly a way to achieve a “soft reboot”. But it’s also necessary to the plot of the Singer film, since Superman cannot have any inkling that Lois became pregnant as a result of the events of Superman II. That means he would have had to leave Earth only a few months, at most, after the events of Superman II — before Lois began to “show” in any way. (BTW, a friend of mine says he *always* thought Lois was pregnant at the end of Superman II, because of the way she goes from being a health nut to craving other kinds of food. That thought had never occurred to me, but I am curious now to know whether Lester had anything like that in mind; if he did, he sure didn’t follow it up in Superman III.)
Re: iconic Batman moments, I had forgotten the elements you mention until you mentioned them just know. But I don’t think I will ever forget the way Bale growls, “Swear to ME!”
Tinakinz said
Those aren’t weapons though! Those are abilities, supernatural abilities. Y’all are gangin up on poor little Tina when all she wants to do is defend her Batman
.
Paul Christian Glenn said
But is a supernatural ability really any different from a weapon? They’re both just something that gives them an unfair advantage over their enemies, right? Right!
Superman, By The Numbers « the balcony fool said
[...] Who Can Save Superman? [...]