Well. Said.

Thanks very much to both of you. This took a while to write since I wanted to make sure I was clear and (hopefully) not rambling and this is something I do honestly care about.

DWIGHT: Damn, I thought you were gonna say ME!

Hear, hear.

Sorry, I appreciate where you’re coming from, and you obviously have a great deal of affection for the character, but I disagree with most of this.

As a 35-year-plus Superman reader, I have to say that Superman comics are never more insufferable than when they overtly treat him as the kind of ennobling redeemer figure you talk about. It always comes across as defensive self-satisfaction. All those stirring quotes you feature drive me crazy–they work way, way too hard to position Superman as an inspiring “angel who came down from the stars,” and they commit the grievous sin of telling instead of showing–a fatal flaw in the headline star of ACTION COMICS. Too many contemporary writers, trying to make their “definitive” mark on Superman, have given the character the core power of making Super Speeches. It’s fanwank writing and it’s almost always embarrassing. Worst, it’s clearly the safe expression of a safe, corporate-managed brand, rather than an idea with the potential to be genuinely exciting.

Moreover, I think you really misinterpret the earliest, purest version of the character. Siegel’s early Superman–Champion of the Oppressed, remember–was motivated less by a noble idealism and belief in the potential for good in all people than by Siegel’s anger at the injustices he saw around him, perpetrated by the powerful against the weak. Capitalists. Politicians. Gangsters. The anonymous guy who murdered Siegel’s father and got away.

Superman threw that profiteer into combat, and dropped that crooked mine owner down his own shaft not out of a desire to forge a better person but to forcefully intimidate them into not being exploitative assholes anymore. He was an avatar of indignation and resentment, who was interested in *results*, not what was in the bad guy’s heart. That take on the character came later. In the first couple of years of Siegel’s stories, the contempt at the heart of the character just shines through. He’s clearly a dickhead, but he’s *our* dickhead, bullying the bullies for a change. That was the real wish-fulfillment. Well, that and leaping into the sky to punch airplanes.

This is just me, but you want a successful take on Superman for the movies in the age of gritty, vengeful heroes? Throw out all of the self-conscious back patting that has accumulated over the decades and simply have him punch the shit out of evil billionaires and their giant robots, with a sarcastic smirk. Have him be a beacon of hope through his actions rather than having the writer scream “This man is a beacon of hope!” Actually give Jerry and Joe’s original idea a shot.

After all, it already worked pretty well once.

Amazing. well said sir, i honestly hope they take that route (the Krypton crest) from Birthright i loved that part of the story

J-EL: Me too, it’s just such a great idea. Another reason I wish I were writing this movie.

ESMOND: Thank you, friend. I’m glad you enjoyed it. I enjoy David Goyer’s a lot (re-watched DARK CITY for the 50th time last night), so I have some faith in him. And I agree with you about the physicality. That stuff is cool, but if that’s really ALL there is to the character, it’s easy to see him as just a nicer-tempered bully or strongman. Batman’s moral code makes him far more interesting than his martial arts skills.

And yeah, I’ve wanted Eccleston as Brainiac for years. Just imagine him piloting that skull-ship! EPIC! Then you bring in Anthony Stewart Head as Jax-Ur and Billy Zane as Lex Luthor, and you got yourself a ball game!

Alan–I’m not sure if my initial, longer comment has made it out of moderation yet, so I don’t what you’re reacting to. But I’m not convinced it’s just a matter of presentation. The first few years of Siegel and Shuster’s Superman, when it was really their vision, is decidedly in the tradition of earlier pulp heroes out for vengeance. He beats sense into people, dangles them off rooftops, subjects them to violently ironic fates–not to make them better people, but to force them to stop being scumbags. Clearly, decades of corporate ownership combined with being written by former fans burning to tell the world What Superman Really Means changed all that, but that wasn’t there at first. At least not as explicit text.

I’m a *huge* fan of Morrison’s All-Star Superman, which is the ne plus ultra of the “Look up in the sky!” school; but I see Morrison as the exception that proves the rule. He gets away with it because he’s 12-level clever and his craft skills are so amazing sharp. The Weisinger Era got away with it because, for instance, Supergirl’s tearful declarations of Superman’s noble greatness were contexualized by the knowledge that A) she wanted to get him in bed and B) two panels later, the great and noble Superman would be instructing his robots to spank Lois. In other words, it was morally incoherent insanity that pretty well reflected the inside of a 10-year-old boy’s head, and was wildly entertaining, but hard to take seriously as a moral vision. Every other modern writer who earnestly focuses on the symbolism and exceptional greatness of Superman tends to faceplant. Because it smacks of special pleading and self-congratulation. I happen to think Superman is all the things you say. But it’s better for the stories not to fixate on it, or to draw peoples’ conclusions for them. As long as your position remains in the subtext, I won’t feel like reaching for my Phantom Zone Projector.

I think DC has missed the boat for decades by ignoring an area in Superman’s development that could really juice the stories, and which would make for a Superman film no one has seen. Because Superman is such an inescapable icon of virtue in the real world of marketing, Superman stories in all media tend to focus on Superman as the lunchbox-friendly, cat-in-tree-saving pal to five-year-olds everywhere. He’s introduced by saving a space plane or whatever, and becomes an instant idol–skipping over a lot of potentially interesting story material. Early on, Superman was a mysterious force who leaped in and out of action faster than anyone could keep up with him. The cops chased him, and not to give him the key to the city. Tom DeHaven had it about right in his recent novel. I’d love to see a Superman like that on the screen for a movie or two.

Esmond, I think you discount “That evil robot over there isn’t going to punch itself” as a valid answer to “Why does the world need Superman?”* Check the Fleischer cartoons, among the most successful translations of the concept to film–that is all they were, and the early ones worked fabulously. Admittedly, Superman was the only game in town for robot punching action back then, but I really don’t think you’re going to plant millions of teenage butts in today’s theater seats by underscoring that Superman is the most optimistically decent, redemptive and hopeful option among their robot punching entertainment choices.

*And the real answer is that as much as I love him, the world doesn’t “need” Superman any more than it needs any other creation of the popular culture. A better case for his cultural importance could be made for 1938, when people were looking for an imaginative safety valve from their frustrations over social inequality and crime attendant with rapid urbanization; or for the 1950s, when young boys maybe got something therapeutic out of having their ids fictionalized and examined through the Weisinger Era books. (Personally, the mid-70s Elliott Maggin super liberal helped shape my views of the death penalty in particular, and politics in general.) But now? I’m not so sure.

Thanks, Alan. Just to be clear, I thought your piece was well-written and thought-provoking (it certainly provoked some thoughts for me) and I definitely share your love of Superman, although my relationship to the character has changed a lot over the years.

@Cole: I think my meaning was slightly misconstrued in the question of “Why does the world need Superman?”: when I asked that particular question, the context of it really was only meant to encompass the world or medium that Superman literally exists in; comics, film, television, you name it. It wasn’t supposed to include ‘our’ world today. My mistake.

But you do bring up interesting points; I can definitely see where you’re coming from. In the case of planting millions of teenage butts, though, I’d like to reply by asking a question I heard J.J. Abrams ask when he discussed making Star Trek: “How do we make this movie for everyone?” Superman’s a character that’s been around for a long time; a fact that you’ve clearly noted with the Fleischer cartoons (I love those too, by the way. Classic animation. You should check out the Superman Classic video on Youtube too, if you haven’t already.) Appealing to young male adults is important, sure, but appealing to everyone is also important (and ultimately more daunting a task). I always like to refer to The Dark Knight in that case; if a superhero film can bring in that much success both commercially ‘and’ critically, then Superman definitely deserves no less than the same kind of careful treatment; fighting evil robots are okay for me, just as long as they aren’t there just for the sake of providing Superman with something to hit.

That’s why I enjoyed Alan’s article so much; I like his approach to Superman. It’s carefully considered with respect to the character’s long history. That, and it references Superman: Birthright, one of my favorite origins behind Superman, and the one I was first introduced to as a comic book reader.

Your consideration of Superman’s cultural significance’s a complicated topic, too. I definitely agree with your assessment of pop cultural figures; they’re less figures of necessity than we make them out to be. But I’m more leaning on the opinion that Superman can be a cultural figure we can look up to even today; explaining THAT, though…boy, we’d be here for a while.

I’ll just leave it at that I like some of the points you’ve brought up; some of them are things I’ve never really stopped to consider.

@Alan: And now I’m half-expecting someone to shout “first!”. It’s become a frightening word, that one.

Claudio: I was fine with the portrayal of Clark in the previous film. He always got laughs and smiles in the different theaters I attended. And Smallville has done a good job of letting people remember that they can relate to him without the need for a costume or ultra-confidence, having done the show now for a solid decade. So I saw no need to comment on that in a piece that was already getting long.

I enjoy Animated Series Clark the most. Touch of Reeve. Touch of Reeves. Not confrontational but not a puss either.

PREDABOT: This wasn’t an interview. No one asked anyone else questions during this. This was an opinion piece. Nor does this post have anything to do with my Agent of S.T.Y.L.E. column. That’s why it’s not listed as such.

REX: I love it, but feel he wasn’t a strong enough presence when they put him on JLU. I love Batman, but DCAU Superman deferred to Batman as leader/tactician a little TOO much. Other than that, all about it. Loved DCAU Clark Kent too. not as confrontational as a superhero, not a wimp either (and how could he be if he’s to be taken seriously as a journalist?).

If you look at the best Superman stories or many of his classic stories, Clark seems uncoordinated, yes, but not excessively clumsy. Just an average guy who sometimes is easily startled. Even Christopher Reeve is not excessively clumsy. He gets his jacket stuck in a door and occasionally seems distracted, but that’s it. These are very normal traits and nicely cement that this person is NOT the same kind of guy who strolls into a room and takes command, who can stand perfectly still as he shrugs off bullets and then move with superhuman accuracy at super-speed. So that makes sense to me. Again, Christopher Reeve isn’t a wimp either. He stumbles over his words and is shy about seeming confrontational, but he asks Lois out on a date the same day that he meets her (pretty gutsy considering her persona), he throws himself as a shield in front of Lois when a mugger shows up, he sarcastically prods Perry that he lacks humility.

I definitely don’t see it as a mockery for humanity since Clark sees himself as “Clark.” Superman is a name people gave him and Krypton is his heritage, but he was raised in Kansas for years before discovering he was an alien. And as Superman, we see he often feels isolated. He’s looked on as “the big guy” or as a celebrity at times. Or people immediately judge him as a boy scout. Batman is one of the few who makes it clear he doesn’t give a damn who Superman is, leading to their strange friendship. With this in mind, Clark Kent is a retreat and an outlet. He’s allowed to admit he doesn’t know certain things when he’s Clark, he’s allowed to show ignorance of a film or music star, he’s allowed to make mistakes. And he’s also really listened to as a person rather than anyone filtering his opinions as “Well, of course an alien would think like this” or “sure, a superhero WOULD think that.”

And everything Clark says in Christopher Reeve’s portrayal and in the original Superman stories, as well as many classic tales, is still honest. In the movie, Perry White tells Clark how insane a burglary was and Clark meekly remarks that he’s never understood violence in any form. That’s actually true. Superman doesn’t really get violence. He resorts to it when the bad guy won’t back down, but he hates when he has to fight because someone just won’t surrender or realize that they’re doing something harmful. And even as Clark, he never stops fighting for justice, Clark just does it through TRUTH, through exposes and journalistic investigation. So because of that, and because Clark can arguably be a retreat from the pressures of being Superman, I see it as necessary that mild-mannered reporter exist as a disguise. Besides, if Clark acts too much like Superman, his co-workers will have no trouble figuring it out. They’re INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS.