The Snyder Superman really seems to have spoke to some people. I think there's a lot of wiggle room between Donner and Snyder so I'm good with seeing if there's some happy medium in there.
Superman
- Thread starter urbandefault
- Start date
The end of Star Wars.
Yep, and that scene was the triumphant cap of the hero's journey--not the empire (which one would expect), but the hero's. Its certainly not the only Riefenstahl reference used by Lucas and his associates in the original trilogy.
Superman Returns is what one gets when making a concerted effort to not only ape the Donner film, but believe said film is some "true" representation of the character, when the comics published at the time the Donner film was in production tell a different story.
All the result of studios not having a single original thought amongst their hired hands, yet they wonder why the films were never embraced as some bold, "new" chapter in their respective franchises. People rarely see creativity in endlessly copy+pasted ideas, scenes and plots.
Unlike those who believe Superman must be trapped in Donner's halcyonic, forced idea of a "golly gee" / Daddy version of the character (who--as noted earlier--did not mirror the comics' version published at the time the Donner film was in production), Batman directors knew they had a character who was not created for, nor defined by Burton, Schumacher, Hanna-Barbera, or Dozier, for that matter. The Batman represented by Bale and Affleck not only have their roots in various comics, but comics actually supported by, instead of rejected by readers, followed by the editors / creators--the latter situation the case with Superman in the late 1960s when DC made a concerted effort to jettison that "golly gee" / Daddy version of the character. Unfortunately, some Superman adaptations took no influence from the changes in the comics, but chased after the "golly gee" / Daddy version, which seems like the kind of superhero stereotypes seen though the eyes of those who do not know the character at all.
Agreed--Darkseid now knows the JL, so his next appearance should be a challenge for the team, rather than one hero.
He was also a product of Depression-er views of criminality and vigilante justice, hence the reason why early Superman could be brutal, killed some criminals and acted as judge and jury.
Well observed. Some have conned themselves into thinking "Superman" and "inspiration" means a "golly gee" / Daddy / Santa tossing candy to the public while grinning and winking. The Cavill Superman began as a string character should--discovering himself, realizing he's an alien (and the dangers of a paranoid human culture), and had to find his way as a protector, but not Santa. His growing identity allowed him to see such a drastic contrast between himself and Batman in Dawn of Justice, seeing Batman as a threat to justice, rather than an agent for it. The tears and whines of "DCEU Superman is-ss s-ooo grimdark" were and remain an extremist reaction to the natural development of the character which cannot be that Santa stereotype from the Donner or Super Friends version.
I still the the greatest adaptation, that nailed every aspect, in the perfect tone, was the Animated Series.
So do we think that Lucas was intentionally hinting that the rebels are also nazis?The end of Star Wars.
I think it's supposed just be a super basic 'don't over think it' image.
I mean, if there is one basic and simplistic over-arcing theme to Star Wars, it's the old adage "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." There are notes of this in every iteration: from Rebels to Andor; from Mando to Somehow Palpatine Returned.
And so here is this visual representation of this ragtag montly crew of misfits who just scored a major victory has now let the [potentially] corrupting force of conformist panoply creep in. It may be conceptually simplistic, but it's certainly timeless.
I mean, if there is one basic and simplistic over-arcing theme to Star Wars, it's the old adage "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." There are notes of this in every iteration: from Rebels to Andor; from Mando to Somehow Palpatine Returned.
And so here is this visual representation of this ragtag montly crew of misfits who just scored a major victory has now let the [potentially] corrupting force of conformist panoply creep in. It may be conceptually simplistic, but it's certainly timeless.
Probably not. More likely Lucas relying on iconic film language that he has scene at USC film school.
The Rebels are supposed to be VC.
I'd argue the problem with comics' depiction is, if anything, the opposite. They're too focused on him as an inspirational figure. Sometimes it feels like every other comic book story about Superman is about that, or about Why Superman Matters. It all starts to feel a bit insular after a while. They're stories *about* Superman, rather than stories *starring* Superman, using him as a vehicle to explore things relevant to our lives.
That's one of the reasons the aforementioned Up in the Sky by King -- a writer I normally have a lot of time for -- left me cold. He seldom feels like an actual person in there, as opposed to a walking dispensary for Tom King's meditations on the Meaning of Superman. Every action, every dialogue from the character is there to further explain "This is what he's all about." I know others love the story, and Grant Morrison's said it demonstrates that King understands Superman better than any other modern writer. And maybe that's true, but I'm not looking for dissertations on Superman; I'm looking for entertaining stories.
Yep.
I grew up in the 70's and Superman was generally thought of as "king of the superheros". For two reasons:
1. He was the first
2. He was the most powerful
That was it.
This was back in the day before all this "Superman has to be inspirational" tripe that permeates the character now. This was back when Superman's primary purpose was NOT to be "inspirational" (because he was no more "inspirational" than any other character), but to be ENTERTAINING. When Superman was what he had always been up to that point: an action / adventure character in exciting stories.
Was there the occasional "why the world needs Superman" type stories? Every once in a blue moon, yes. My favorite of that type being Superman 400 back in the early 80's when I collected Supes. Then we get to the 90's and the age of "relevance" and more grounded heroes and all of a sudden Superman feels like a relic because the world was changing but there was a segment of fans who said "not him!" and they struggled with a way to keep him relevant and meaningful in a quickly changing landscape.
So writers looking for a way to imbue some deeper meaning latch on to the "hope" and "inspiration" thing and slather it all over Superman ad nauseum forgetting that the character is, first and foremost, there to tell exciting stories. In the 70's and 80's, fans weren't constantly blathering on and on about how Supes is supposed to inspire anything. Because he was no more inspirational than any other character in the 70's. They all had the same moral code, all had the same rule against killing, etc, etc, etc.
I find Superman to be a good character, but I find that my enjoyment dwindles because I'm not interested in a preachy, Pollyanna. I enjoy 1938 Superman the most because he's far more exciting than the guy that's been around for the last several decades. He was fun, was actually a champion of the oppressed instead of the status quo, he got angry, he cracked wise and cracked heads. He was the original snarky, brawler hero, but everyone seems to have completely forgotten that and that those were the things that made him a massive hit to not just kids, but to the general public.
That guy is entertaining, and because he's not an all powerful god who doesn't need to eat, doesn't need shelter, doesn't need money, doesn't have any of the pressures that drive humans in their everyday lives, leading to wrong choices and dark paths, he's actually inspirational.
The modern guy is an all powerful god for whom the everyday problems of the average Joe are a choice. Him talking about hope or believing in the "good in people" is like listening to the worlds richest man preach from a place of absolute comfort, telling people that struggle daily, that he believes in them while doing jack shit to help them in anyway that matters.
Jor-El must have been working with a reverse Prime Directive. He was looking for a low tech backwater planets where it didn't matter if his kid ruined a world once his powers kicked in.
I wonder if any comics historian's looked into what the first comic was that portrayed Superman as even a moral paragon in comparison to other DC superheroes, above and beyond even the others. It'd be an interesting topic.
Oh, how I long to live in the alternate reality where Grant Morrison's Action Comics became a definitive text the same way his All-Star Superman did.
This part I'll disagree with. I don't have a problem with the high power levels. They just force the writers to be creative with the conflicts instead of just doing another punch 'em up. And he should feel a little off and alien. Making him too human is as much of a mistake as making him too alien.
Last edited:
I'm not just talking about culture. His biology works differently. His senses make his perception of the world different. His mind works somewhat differently.
Good question. I didn't really notice it until the early to mid 90's, and generally I associate that noticing with Alex Ross projects, probably starting with Kingdom Come and later the oversized Superman thing he did, which iirc was called "Peace On Earth". Those are the ones that stand out to me now, decades later, but yeah, don't really know.
The late 60's, 70's and early 80's were adding a level of maturation to superheroes that they did not have in the 40's and 50's. Was it a good thing? Well I feel like the books of the late 60's, 70's and early 80's, while certainly getting a little darker, could still be read as all ages entertainment for the most part. By the time I started collecting DC books in the early 80's, the first story I read that drew a line in regards to how Batman and Superman were different in their crime fighting approach, was Worlds Finest 292. They're being interviewed by a radio host (pretty sure it wasn't tv) and Batman says something along the lines of "I want people to fear me" whereas Supes takes the opposite approach.
Superman 400, one of my favorite comics of all time, was an anniversary issue which explored the impact Superman had on the world. It was comprised of short stories, each moving further into the future (no Legion story though iirc), including a story about an asteroid (?) with relics from our universe that included a copy of a George Reeves Superman opening, which solved the age old question of who Superman was in his secret identity. To a story about an oppressive future where a bum discovers Superman's indestructible costume and begins the fight against the oppressors until he's headshotted, whereupon someone else picks up the costume as the spark of revolution has been lit. It ends at the end of the universe and the beginning of the next. So for me, that was the first story I recall reading Superman as an inspirational character.
But as I said before, that type of story was not the norm. Most were just typical comics fare where he was fighting updated versions of Luthor and Braniac, before Crisis hit.
Oh, how I long to live in the alternate reality where Grant Morrison's Action Comics became a definitive text the same way his All-Star Superman did.
I remember reading that Morrison was looking to the original Superman when he did his Action run, and I don't know what my reaction was to t-shirt and jeans Supes, but I was happy that he was going back to a Superman that could be snarky and show, not just emotions, but a broad spectrum of emotions, not just smiley, calm, and preachy. Again, Supes is the original wise cracking, brawler. Don't remember if I had stopped collecting by that point or not, or why I didn't pick it up. May need to see if there's a trade, I'd be interested in giving it a read.
With apologies, but I think you missed the point of the bit you quoted because of my wording. My issue is less with his power level, and more with I don't want to hear someone who doesn't have to worry about the vast array of everyday problems and the potential those problems have when it comes to leading people astray, or causing depression, preach about being "hopeful" or telling us how much he "believes" in people. It's like listening to someone born into wealth telling people that he "believes" in them, all while sitting in comfort. Spider-Man, who deals with a lot more shit and struggles to pay rent, hold a job, has relationship problems, etc, is more inspirational because he keeps fighting the good fight despite all that (without all the shlocky speeches). At least when I read the character, back then his luck was absolute shit. Spidey can't just squeeze coal into diamonds to get money, or fly to his rent free Fortress, or literally go anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye. Doesn't have robots that can help him out, etc.
So I don't mind a god level Superman when it comes to pure entertainment. My second favorite version of Superman is the powered back up Supes of the Bronze Age, when he could move planets and flew fast enough to break the Time Barrier to get to the 30th Century and the Legion.
Last edited:
Largely. The Santa Claus is Comin' to Town version had been abandoned after the departure and influence of Weisinger, and under other editors, Superman was written as a character with a real identity, as opposed to the equivalent of a statue with "hope" chiseled into it. The Donner film grafted a "hope" and "inspirational" (in the Santa model) idea to the character that was not mirrored in the comics of the same era.
True.
Quite true.
Weisinger insured one thing: Superman was the polar opposite of his early development as a Depression era vigilante, turning him into a character built into some statue / Santa figure--as devoid of a real identity as anything coming off of a Ford assembly line, barely able to interact with the other characters on the DC roster.
Thank you. That's one of the biggest problems with the Superman and Lois TV series, as that Superman--with Hoechlin channeling Reeve's Santa / bumbler routine--routinely dishing out "It will be alright" platitudes which make him seem out of touch with reality, as if inspirational speeches will solve very individualized problems.
Last edited:
I am really out of touch with culture. Didn't see MoS because I don't like seeing human simulacra doing violence. There's enough real shit in the world, that I don't care to see more, in movies. Even Spock pummeling Cumberbatch on the trolley thing in Into Darkness. Not my style. Also haven't seen any of these TV shows.
I did see Superman 78 then and several times since and still think it's a great movie, just as amovie, the Kansas parts esp. Beautiful sonically, visually, dramatically. Watched the Donner cut of II recently too.
I don't really remember from them, Supes as Icon of Hope as ppl are reading into him, at least not overtly. He is a pretty positive dude, very upstanding, and in the Taxi Driver 70s, he and SW 77 were very contra-normal, positive, primary color, joyful flicks. So maybe b/c the movie itself was positive for the most part (Supes' positivity/Boy Scoutiness is kinda campy, really) people are reading into it that he was an icon of hope. (?)
I haven't read the comics you all know of where this seems to be a much more overt thing. In the two flicks, he's definitely flawed (earth-spinning and truck driver pummeling mentioned above . . . I also would add that he sacrifices his powers to help others for his own happiness in II). Though a very decent and positive guy overall.
I did see Superman 78 then and several times since and still think it's a great movie, just as amovie, the Kansas parts esp. Beautiful sonically, visually, dramatically. Watched the Donner cut of II recently too.
I don't really remember from them, Supes as Icon of Hope as ppl are reading into him, at least not overtly. He is a pretty positive dude, very upstanding, and in the Taxi Driver 70s, he and SW 77 were very contra-normal, positive, primary color, joyful flicks. So maybe b/c the movie itself was positive for the most part (Supes' positivity/Boy Scoutiness is kinda campy, really) people are reading into it that he was an icon of hope. (?)
I haven't read the comics you all know of where this seems to be a much more overt thing. In the two flicks, he's definitely flawed (earth-spinning and truck driver pummeling mentioned above . . . I also would add that he sacrifices his powers to help others for his own happiness in II). Though a very decent and positive guy overall.
I got that sense in the animated series episode “Unity:”
https://dcau.fandom.com/wiki/Unity_(episode) -there is a scene where the supes are using X-Ray vision where—for just a moment—they looked like the Children of the Damned.
Perhaps the most unnerving episode of the DCAU ever…though the best unearthly villain came far earlier:
https://dcau.fandom.com/wiki/Karkull?so=search
Ah, in that case, I getcha.
The Weisinger Superman wasn't about inspiration or hope, nor was it trying to be. Every other story was petty schoolyard popularity stuff, about Superman being jealous that Jimmy likes some new hero in town more because he has cooler powers or whatever. Weisinger was producing those stories for little boys, so they were about what little boys cared about (or what Weisinger thought they did, at any rate): Schoolyard popularity, girls having cooties (all those stories about Superman cruelly pranking Lois for daring to snoop into his business) and weirdo aliens, not Superman as a Christ figure, which kids couldn't care less about it.
As The Lensman said, that sort of stuff came in with later eras, partly in an attempt at sophistication or relevance for the aging audience, partly because writers who were fans as kids wanted to do meta stories about how much the character meant to them. (Mark Waid, for example, has written about how Superman literally saved his life and he basically was that suicidal kid in that famous All-Star Superman scene.)
Superman's a pretty hard character to get right, especially in cinema. Really, IMO there's only been one truly good Superman movie and that was the original Donner one.
And even THAT one had serious issues, like Hackman's Luthor, Kidder's Lois and the "spin the world backwards" ending.
And even THAT one had serious issues, like Hackman's Luthor, Kidder's Lois and the "spin the world backwards" ending.
