Sawr me that new “Superman” movie. Twice, actually. It’s real fun.
I won’t spoil anything, except to say it was pleasant to see a fun Superman movie again. And Krypto alone is worth the ticket.
I’ve loved the original Donner “Superman” since I was a kid. It’s one of the earliest movies I remember seeing in a theater. “Star Wars” was my first and best cinematic memory, Donner’s was a close second. The sense of wonder I had at that age, seeing giant starships and laser swords and flying superheroes, is it any mystery why so many of us Gen Xers got the storytelling bug? No wonder there’s too many comic book movies.
There have been plenty of Superman disappointments since, maybe even starting with “Superman II,” depending on your opinion. It holds a special place in my heart, having not one, not two, but three villains of equal power to Superman. As a kid, I liked it better than the first one. I’ve since come around to digging the first one more, but the second one is still special to me.
“III” and “IV: The Quest For Peace,” it gets dicey. “Superman Returns,” an interesting misfire. The many TV shows, most of which I only saw a handful of episodes, all seemed to be lacking something. Except the Animated Series, that one is pretty awesome.)
But I really wanted to chat about the Synderverse.
And “Man of Steel.”
This one, I tells ya. Very mixed feelings.
On its own, it’s… okay. Got some very good things, some not as great. It tried some things. It swung. And most times, I can forgive a big swing.
Some folks loved it, a modern, edgier, grittier approach to Superman. Others didn’t love it, and Synder got a lot of flack for going so different with the character.
To me, the Synderverse is a mostly missed opportunity. It set up more complicated questions than it was able to answer, and seemed to sorta decide in the end that style would cover the lack of substance.
But those questions could’ve been really something, if they’d paid off.
[Spoilers incomin’.]
So, in MoS, instead of Clark Kent being raised by parents who tell him he has to use his powers for good (the traditional approach), his folks want him to hide what makes him special. Makes sense, in the modern day, if we discovered a god living among men, the first thing we’d do is probably fuck it, then cut it open. Then fuck it again.
That made sense to me, and was an interesting character inversion for Pa Kent. And it gives Superman a choice that previous iterations haven’t been faced with: do I follow my father’s advice, and hide my light under a bushel, or do I choose to defy his wishes, and risk my neck saving the world?1
A provocative choice. Because, of course, he becomes Superman. So he’s making a decision to not be the man his father wants him to be, and become the hero he knows the world needs. Superman, the hero, as a choice, rather than a given. Always like it when a hero chooses the right thing, when all good sense points to the contrary.
Good start. Thought-provoking possibilities.
(Then Synder chooses to kill Pa Kent in a way I can’t even fathom, dying in a tornado while Clark stands there, thumb up his arse, dad not allowing Clark to rescue him, and give away his identity. To me, that’s part of that choice - Clark would never sacrifice anyone, let alone his father, unless there was another terrible choice to be made - he could save his father OR a bus full of school kids. Or even a fucking dog. That’s a choice worthy of Superman. Just standing there and watching Pa die is silliness, and a big strike against the movie.)2
So then, they basically repeat “Superman II,” having an army of Kryptonian villains, led by General Zod (played by Michael Shannon, who I love in most anything he does, because he makes some fucking weird choices), all with the same powers as Superman, coming to conquer Earth. Supes mostly is able to fight them off, but Zod refuses to go quietly. He starts violently killing civilians, telling Supes, “if you wanna stop me, you have to kill me!”
So Superman kills him. The end.
Some hated that. Others loved it.
(Now, nerd alert, this isn’t the first time Superman has killed somebody in one of his movies. In “Superman II,” he sends the depowered General Zod and his buddies falling into a pit under the Fortress of Solitude, and in “Superman III,” he chokes out an evil version of himself. But for whatever reason, nobody took those as violating the “no-kill” code. Different time, I guess.)
(Superman also killed General Zod in the comics in the late 80s, written and drawred by John Byrne.)
I’m not twelve years old anymore, so the idea of Superman brutally killing somebody isn’t as rad as it probably would’ve been about four decades ago, when I was still cool and edgy.
(Actually, now that I think about it, I was lukewarm at best with that comics story where Superman killed Zod. So maybe I wasn’t as cool and edgy as I thought.)
And I don’t think doing it to show that “the world is cold and unfair and even Superman gets dragged down in the dirt like everyone else,” is a particularly innovative approach to the character. Plenty of other stories have done that, and done it better. It has its place, but the Synderverse doesn’t earn it, just does it to do be edgy.
However, I did think this would be a golden opportunity to show a different approach to Superman, coming to his “no-kill” rule a new way. If taking a life showed him how important it was to always find a better solution, then that would be in keeping with the other stuff I’m talking about - Superman, the upright superhero, as a choice. A decision.
Cuz, let’s face it, Superman in the comics and earlier movies, usually isn’t presented with a Kobayashi Maru “no win scenario,” he’s usually allowed a way out that doesn’t force him to test his morals. (And when he *is* given a no-win in the original Superman, he sorta cheats and turns back time to fix it.)
If, in the next “Man of Steel” movie, Superman was having to deal with the fallout of that decision to kill a villain, it would be forgivable to me. Superman is feeling guilty, wondering if there was something more he could’ve done to stop Zod short of killing. Then, bam, Brainiac appears in his metal skull ship above Metropolis and starts disintegrating citizens with his death ray, and people are like, “You gotta kill him, Superman!” it would be much more interesting to me if Superman responded, “No. I don’t do that. I did it once and I can’t forgive myself for it. There has to be another way.”
Hey, that’s Superman! That’s the guy we know, who stands for truth and justice and the quest for peace! He’s come to his philosophy by a different route, but maybe that’s the modern iteration of a god choosing to be human, and live by human rules.
But no, the next time we see him in “Batman v. Superman,” he’s moved on and seems fairly cool with himself. Killing someone doesn’t seem to have phased him, even though he himself will soon be meeting with the grim reaper. See, that could also have been something, a guy who killed, now having to face being killed. Even that could’ve been made interesting.
But no; they opted for “Martha.” Lord help us all. And if you don’t know what I mean, don’t bother finding out, the juice ain’t worth the squeeze.
I mean, by that point, the idea of a narrative with any good sense was out the window anyway, so I sat back and enjoyed Batfleck, and all the bonuses that came with him, the first 30 mins of “Suicide Squad,” the ghastly indulgence of the four-hour “Justice League”… I mean, if you’re gonna be silly, be whole-hog silly. That’s the one thing about the Synderverse I can get behind; that shit is nutty as balls.
I don’t know if that equals good, though.
So yeah, I’m glad they gave Supes to James Gunn. The moral questions may not be as [potentially] stimulating, but at least the shit is fun again.
READING
I finished re-reading “The Last Good Kiss,” and as probably could be predicted, really enjoyed it the second time around. The style was everything this time.
I’m midway through Cormac McCarthy’s “The Orchard Keeper,” and, as usual with me and McCarthy, I’m awed and confused. I read two or three pages, shake my head, blink, and say to myself, “Okay, so… an old man walked through an orchard. That’s all that happened those last few pages?” Then, I read another page, and ten years pass and probably somebody gets brutally murdered. McCarthy’s word choices and descriptive style are something else, nobody does it like him.
I’m also bouncing between “Bright Lights, Big City” by Jay McInerney (based on a rec from my friend and story reader Craig Sechler), and “The Gutter and the Grave,” by Ed McBain. I pick either of these up during my lunchtime, cuz I’m still in my minimalist prose admiration phrase, and both are dynamite examples.
WATCHING
Squid Game III! I know, I’m the only one who cares, but I still enjoy the show. The first series was great, if you sawr it, you know why. The second series I enjoyed, because the running theme was, “NOBODY EVER FUCKING LEARNS.” And y’know, in the modern day, that’s an incredibly valid lesson for us all. And we’ll see how this third series plays out. So far so good…
STORIES…
Click the covers to read muh stories:
… AND PODCASTS
Join us for “The Hold Up” -
- and “Sensory Overload!”
© MMXV
Oddly, “Smallville,” the CW teen Superman show, had a kinda similar quandary: what if Jor-El sent Kal to Earth to conquer it, rather than protect it? I wish they’d done better by that question also. Maybe some Superman movie might explore that…
They COULD use it as a chance to teach Clark about not letting anyone die, but that’s part of what makes the movie a missed opportunity.