Superman Returns
In short, I was underwhelmed. I’ve been weary about the premise of the movie since I first heard about it. Why bother making a pseudo-sequel to a 25 year old movie? I’d have preferred an updated origin story, but with all of the ideas for a new Superman movie that have been floating around over the years (black suit, killed by Doomsday, Nicholas Cage) this is probably the best idea that could escape from the soulless studio executive pit. Despite my reservations, I think the premise did hold a lot of promise. As explained in a recent Entertainment Weekly article on the film :
But beyond comic-book high jinks, Singer and the scribes decided they would emphasize the Man of Steel’s alienation, the Superman-Lois-Richard love triangle, and the tacit mystery surrounding the paternity of Lois’ son. And it would all pivot on the vaguely self-aware where did Superman go? conceit, which not only devastates Lois but spurs her to write an article called ”Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” ”The idea,” says Dougherty, ”was to address the perceived irrelevancy of Superman by making a movie about the theme of his irrelevancy.”
Sounds good. Having Superman disappear for five years and return to a world that no longer needs him is a pretty good starting point. People are so used to the dark, edgy surperhero tale, that an old-fashioned (in a good way) hero like Superman would seem a little outdated. There’s two problems with that notion.
First of all, the original Superman movies came out in the 70’s, hardly the “good ol days”. If one wants to presume that the public just wouldn’t accept a good-natured escapist fantasy like the original Superman films, it’s a bit facetious to pretend that those same issues wouldn’t have come up when the originals came out. As Pauline Kael wrote when she trashed the original movie :
The story has been updated from the thirties to the seventies, but not modernized, not rethought—just plunked down in the seventies. In the era of Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffman, and Woody Allen—a time when people acknowledge the humor and good sense in cowardice—might not the girl reporter (Margot Kidder) find herself drawn to Clark Kent’s unsureness and feel some conflict in her swooning response to Superman? (She might even prefer Clark Kent.) And, in an era in which urban corruption and decay are deep and widespread, Superman’s confident identification with the forces of law and order, and his thinking that he’s cleaning up Metropolis (New York City) when he claps some burglars and thieves in jail, might be treated with a little irony. (It would be more fun to see him putting out a fire while kids threw stones at him, or arresting a mugger and being surrounded by an angry, booing crowd, or tackling the garbage problem.) The Superman who announces “I’m here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way” needs a little ribbing. But the film doesn’t bring any ambiguity into this portrait of an outsize F.B.I. man from space.
But the bigger problem is the fact that Superman Returns never bothered to seriously “address the perceived irrelevancy of Superman”. Superman’s been gone for five years and when he gets back, it’s the same old Metropolis. His first act of heroism was to rescue an airliner and land it in a baseball stadium full of people who love him. If you’re going to make a movie about Superman being irrelevant, maybe you should have more people dislike him than just his arch-enemy and the girlfriend he abandoned without a word.
Okay, fine, I’m being nitpicky at this point, but let me tell you what I really hoped to see.
In the original comics, Superman came to Earth as a baby and was adopted by the Kent family. Once he became a young adult, both of his adopted parents died and he moved to Metropolis to become Superman. At that point, Clark Kent, the identity he had lived with his entire life, became little more than a disguise for the “real” guy, Superman. In the 80’s, John Byrne reinvented the character by making Clark Kent the focus and Superman the persona he assumes when wearing the tights. To emphasise his Clark Kent roots even more, Byrne kept the Kents alive and highlighted Clark’s frequent trips back home to see the folks.
To me, that change defined everything that’s great about Superman. Not only did Superman now have a family to which he could talk to about his superheroics or his relationship with Lois (like any proud mother, Mrs. Kent even kept a scrapbook of Superman’s exploits), but it was the Kent family that made Superman who he is. Superman isn’t a defender of “truth, justice, and the American way” because he’s got a bunch of superpowers. He does what he does because he had a ma and pa that raised him to be someone who would pledge his life to helping other people.
That’s why, to me, the most crucial line in the original isn’t any of the pseudo-Shakespearean mumbo-jumbo from Marlon Brando, but this lesson from Glenn Ford after he catches a young Clark Kent showing off to a bunch of people from his school :
Pa Kent: I know. You can do all these amazing things, and sometimes you think that you will burst wide open unless you can tell someone about it, don’t you?… There’s one thing I know for sure, son. And that is, you are here for a reason. I don’t know what it is, exactly, but I do know this much: it’s not to score touchdowns.
That’s the spark that motivated Clark Kent to become Superman. It wasn’t just that he had a bunch of cool powers and nothing better to do, but that he’s devoted to helping other people. Superman is often derided as a “big blue boy scout”, but I think of him as more of a Jimmy Stewart-type. An idealist who will do everything he can to save people and privately kicking himself with the knowledge that even a Superman can’t stop all the injustice in the world. In short, I want a Superman movie to be as inspiring as it is visually exciting.
By the way, to prove my Super-geek credentials, check out this prototype Superman blog I designed a long time ago and never did anything with.
11 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I was just amazed at how they blew past all the improvements which have to the Superman story over the years. Luthor as a more cunning enemy rather than just some mad scientist who steals things. The Kents alive. Superman not quite so all powerful. These have all added to the story, yet they were ignored. You get the feeling that nobody had read any of the comics or even watched any of the newer shows (L&C, Smallville); all they did was look at the two prior movies and go from there.
And I was upset at some of the things they had Superman do.
Comment by ken — June 29, 2006 @ 11:20 am
i LOVED it!!!
Comment by tomN! — June 29, 2006 @ 12:42 pm
I have tried to muster some enthusiasm for this movie, but I just have never had any love for Superman. He’s always seemed like my parents’ or my grandparents’ superhero. Reading this post makes me wish Brian Singer had stuck with X-Men, at least, for this last movie.
Comment by E-Rock — June 29, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but your post reminds me of the reaction when Spiderman came on the scene in the 60s. Comics had been overrun with these ‘uber’ heroes that were so powerful that the writers had to keep coming up with more and more outlandish villains. Then along comes Peter Parker — a high school geek with zits and all — and suddenly here’s a hero that people can relate to. On the surface, it’s kind of hard to relate to an alien with powers and abilities so far beyond the average guy. I remember the movies of the 70s — they suffered from the same problem that the comics had circa the 60s. There were some ‘human’ moments, but overall it was hard to really relate to this guy.
Comment by schmoopy — June 29, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
I plan on seeing the film, and when I do, I’ll chime in. I just wanted to say that, despite popular derision of it, I really enjoyed Lois & Clark starring Dean Cain and Teri Hatcher. Yes, the budget was poor, the action terrible and the bad guys lackluster, but it was my favorite Superman “vehicle.” I loved the way that we got to see how a SUPER human being had to adjust to living a normal life. From boiling tea with his eyes to accidentally breaking a door to always having to duck away when danger happened, it was just a very fascinating look. John Shea was a wonderful and dastardly Lex Luthor, cunning and cruel. Lane Smith was a delightful Perry, Michael Landes a fun Jimmy, and Jones and Callan were excellent as Clark’s parents. I know the show jumped the shark after only the second season, but those first two years were great. As far as Clark Kent goes, it’s really hard to do any better than that. Thoughts? Anyone?
Comment by ChrisV82 — June 29, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
What I noticed right away about this movie was the typical “WB HOT YOUNG CAST” bullshit. So…this is supposed to happen after Superman II, right? Wasn’t Supes already 30 at that time? Remember? At 18 he “built” the fortress, had a 12 year journey with his father then took off for the big city. So, another 5 years past and he looks much younger and so does Lois. Was the studio seriously thinking that people could not identify with older lead characters? Kinda like what that asshole director said about his horrible Fog remake. It something along the lines of “it needs a young cast so younger people can identify to it.” Good lord. Why not just slap Tom Atkins in the face while you’re at it.
I really don’t get what Singer was doing with this movie. He wants a Superman that is like Reeves but he has a Lois that seems nowhere near Kidder. There are so many story lines that could have been used but what we get is another Lex Luthor land snatching story, the cute kid bullshit and a small amount of cool action. I guess he has this thing for screwing up comic book characters.
Comment by Kryten Syxx — June 30, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Save the earth, Kal el.
Comment by Love — June 30, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
It wasn’t a bad movie. In fact, I quite enjoyed it. There is a bit of cynicism towards this movie because it isn’t as deep and gritty as, say, Sin City or any of the other comic movies.
When the world is a screwed as it is today, what with shrubbery ruining the world and the “American Way” which is part of Ol’ Supes tagline ( which coincidentally is not said in the movie… truth and justice are there) being in question in the hearts and minds of most thinking Americans, there is absolutely nothing wrong with some good hearted and escapist comic drama.
For some reason hearing the old Superman theme and seeing the opening credits designed after the original movies, I got a warm feeling inside. Superman is a mythos that can be transposed over any time period, and his purpose as an icon is to give hope and escape, which is what we tend to need more now than ever.
Cheers
Comment by Benjamin — July 3, 2006 @ 8:49 am
I finally saw the movie. I thought it was crap. Not X-Men 3 level crap, but still bad. Technically speaking, I thought it was wonderful. Great CGI, very pretty, etc. As far as plot goes, that wouldn’t even fly in a comic book.
*SPOILERS*
I don’t understand why they decided to make the meat of the movie about Superman returning after a 5 year absence and finding out he has a kid. It’s so…weird. Superman turns into a stalker.
Lex’s evil plot is the most ass retarded thing I’ve seen in a long time. Even if he did succeed in creating that massive landmass and disrupting the environment, how could people live on that chunk of lifeless rock?
*END SPOILERS*
What a waste of a franchise, and it just got (re)started.
Comment by ChrisV82 — July 3, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
I’m not a comic buff at all, so I was looking for an entertaining film experience– but this was one of the most boring movies I’ve seen in a long time. The plot was completely linear and only became somewhat interesting the last 30 minutes of the 2 1/2 hour movie. I didn’t care about any of the characters (except Jimmy Olsen). Superman just stared at people with puzzled looks. Kitty added nothing and Lex Luthor’s plan was indeed riduculous…. If you’re going to have a crappy plot at least throw in some comic relief and interesting characters.
Comment by Erin — July 5, 2006 @ 10:13 am
I think i’m something like superman. Am I crazy or should I embrace it?
Comment by roger — May 12, 2007 @ 6:03 pm