why the world needs superman

a group of us (joey, bill, chris, roxy, valerie and myself) just got back from a screening of 'superman returns'.

spoilers follow. so please dont ruin the film for yourself. stop right here and know that i say 'a-'. go see it. and now youve been warned. read on only if you want my detailed impressions.

im a long, long time superman fan. i started not long after i began reading comics. i started in the summer of '86, right when dc and john byrne rebooted superman with 'the man of steel' miniseries. its interesting because, while i can say that ive been reading and following superman for 20 years now, its only been in the last 5 years or so that i have really rounded out my knowledge of the stories prior to 1986.

thats all to let you know that i have a weird bias on multiple levels when it comes to good old kal-el.

so what of this movie?

it's solid as a rock. i can't count the number of nice images, tributes and nods.

these start with opening credits identical in style to the original two superman movies. (singer has stated that he 'superman returns' is a sequel to the first two superman movies — the third and fourth are retconned out of existence. i think we can be thankful for that.)

as such, the characters resemble the donner movies more than more recent takes — lex luthor is still buffonish here. he still has a bimbo hanging around. the art design looks like a film from 1978 in places (the cars are older models, the haircuts and costumes are styled in older ways).

we get the cover of action comics #1. we get a 'great caesar's ghost'. we get (it looked like) the black suit from when superman came from to life in '94 (though it was in the shadows, perhaps it was the normal suit…but i can dream). we even get superman and lois meeting in an event nearly identical to 'man of steel' #1 — saving a malfunctioning space plane.

i dont want to give away any spoilers for the movie…but there are parts i cant discuss without spoiling. so really, stop if you dont want to know. ill wait right here for you.

there are a number of interesting things happening here in the movie. the first of which tackles the responsibility of a hero. it seems dc has struggled with this over the last 10 years or so — since the 'death' of superman in 9. what does superman mean to us as readers today? the movie nails it. superman isnt here to save us, superman is here to inspire us. point to the movie.

the bigger point and the big reveal (that i knew from the first second ) is that superbaby is in the film. yeah, im pretty not too pleased about it.

why?

1. it builds on this weird plot line from superman 2. in a nutshell — he gives up his powers to love lois, they sleep together and then he gets his powers back. lame. his powers dont work like that. they come from the sun, not from these weird crystals the movies made up.

regardless, that little sidestep shuffle allows this movie to explain 1. how he has an illegitimate child, 2. how lois might have survived childbirth (he wasnt superman when they slept together) and 3. who cares? this shuffle forgets then that 1. superman left earth without saying goodbye to lois. she, in turn, forgot to tell him she was pregnant with his child and 2. she slept with clark, not superman. what a gyp.

so fine, superman has a kid in the movie now. no big whoop — its about the only thing that could cause strain between lois and clark if he has been away for 5 years. she cant be married, too messy. being a widow is equally as no good. and simply dating someone else wouldnt provide enough tension. no, the child was the way to go.

but its worrisome, for a number of reasons.

will the comic follow suit? it is likely — the current superman storyline resembles the movie in more than a passing way. (the crystals are present, as is lex luthor, as is combining them to make them grow these strange structures.) superman just lost his powers for a year (dont ask). it sets it up nicely for lois to be pregnant with clark's baby, esp since it once again sidesteps the whole 'could lois bear his child' deal. and with warner brothers commiting to another superman film by 2008/09, there might be a baby in supermans life soon.

but the part that i find most worrisome about this is how this changes superman's status quo. i like the idea of growth for the character; i think that though the marriage was rushed, having him marry lois has been a positive. but back up with me a little. its usually about the 'last son of krypton'. superman is the great outsider, created by imigrants carving a new way of life. giving him an heir, a son, weakens his uniqueness. now he has a bloodline. he is no longer alone, no longer an outsider. he has created a legacy.

and maybe, for a character that has been published continiously for 70 years, thats ok. perhaps its overdue. but the can of worms this creates is not small. (and this coming 2 weeks after spider-man revealed his secret identity to the world in the comic.)

does this shift, this change in superman, signal something bigger and more sweeping for the character? the fact that warner brothers allowed him to have a child out of wedlock? that this is the version of superman many, many people will come to know? in a 50th anniversary book for superman, there is an essay 'why superman must be a virgin' which makes a long case for superman as a universal role model. plain and pure. and this new movie knocks that notion right out on its ass. is it good? or overdue? time will tell.

but as long as you can put the terrible plothole of superman 2 behind you and you can look past the superbaby plot device, you ought to find a really decent movie. for the first time, i can really imagine superman flying through the streets, up, up and away.

a very solid a-.