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.

However… going into reading this interview, I expected you to shout off at how Supermans costume, or uniform if you’d like, should look like on the screen.

I was expecting you to come with some very choice and intelligent points on the design, perhaps even what *could* work as a redesign of the character, for the big-screen.

So… could you please do another article, about this subject? The actual potential hyper-modern, Man of Tomorrow.

Come on… you’ve mentioned you hate the shorts outside the pants, well here’s your shot…

Show me what you got.

But a great Superman movie (or story) also needs one thing: Clark Kent. Many people say “you can’t relate to Superman, he’s too powerful!”. But they forget about Clark. He’s the ultimate avatar for the comic book reader. There’s this guy, good at heart, slightly nerdy, who is capable of turining into the World’s Greatest Hero to save the world… and the girl he loves. That’s all of us, encapsulated. We’re Clark Kents, hoping the world will see the Superman inside of us.

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.

And btw, ATTENTION INTERNET. Notice that we are able to DISCUSS and DISAGREE on some points without getting up in each other’s face in any kind of personal way. Take a lesson!

NATHAN: One is in the works. An Agent of S.T.Y.L.E. on Superman would involve more costume changes than you might think, trust me. Do you realize how often this guy’s worn armor?

*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.

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.

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!

My problem with the general approach of equating physicality ‘with’ heroism, even in summer blockbuster superhero films, feels like a misrepresentation of what makes Superman truly ‘Super’. It feels like the equivalent of associating Batman’s heroism with the amount of gadgets and martial arts he utilizes; it comes off as a somewhat shallow assessment of the character and why they are relevant as “heroes”, not just any random capes.

With your approach, it feels as if a Superman film would work well with it. Sure, his physicality is there, but it’s only a supplement, a piece of the puzzle to what exactly makes Superman the Man of Tomorrow. Awesome article, Alan! Let’s hope David Goyer had as much a handle on the character as you clearly have!

Casual side-note: Christopher Eccleston as Brainiac – that is AWESOME. Man, that’d be a fun bit of casting!

COLE: I understand your point, but you seem to be focused on the details of how it’s presented and the actions/dialogue used. That’s not what I was discussing. Actions and dialogue and presentation will always change based on medium and time period. I’m focused on the bare-basics idea behind the actions. The speech I used was to illustrate a point of intent, not to say his dialogue should be written like that in the film. For a film especially, I think Morrison or Waid style dialogue would work best, when he just says a couple of sentences that sums it all up, a la All-Star Superman.

To a lynch mob:
“Go on! scatter! This prisoner’s fate will be decided in a court of justice. Return to you homes!” When they jump him he yells “You’re begging for it!” and thrashes the shit out of them.

To the woman who killed Jack Kennedy:
“You’re wasting your time. I’m only interested in seeing you get what’s coming to you! You little vixen!” (crushes her gun) “Are you ready to sign the confession? Or should I give you a taste of how that gun felt when I applied the pressure?” And when she says she’s get the electric chair by confessing, he replies “You should have thought of that before you took a human life!”

And best of all, to the wife-beater he’s throwing through a wall: “You’re not fighting a woman now!”

Aside from the scorn in the character’s voice, note what a man of few words he was. He typically jumped in to save the day, got off a few grim proto-Connery/Schwarzenegger one-liners or commands, and jumped away before Lois could corner him.

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.