Superman Returns!

After nearly twenty years, Superman has returned to the big screen! Regular visitors to this site will inevitably know that I have been following the progress of this production since long before the inception of it's current incarnation, and have been none too quiet on the matter. So, after over a year of anticipation, excitement, and wild ranting, I have finally seen the film, and am in a position to make an informed opinion.

First overall impressions: very well done. My major concern with this film had been that they would make fundamental changes to the nature of the character, and I am happy to say that this is something that they have very respectfully maintained. There is one point, and quite a major one at that, that I am not happy about, but I will come back to that in due course.

As with any film, the most important elements are the plot and the storyline. These were not too bad, but there were holes in them, and specifically holes in the plot that related to casting issues, but again I'll move on to those. The film begins with Superman returning to Earth after a mysterious absence of five years, and Lex Luthor swindling the heirs of a dying old lady out of her estate on her death bed. After Superman saves the day and makes his big comeback, Luthor hatches a plot to grow his own island using Kryptonian technology, which will eventually consume America, and make him sole proprietor of the most important real estate on the planet, as well as the most advanced technology. Little does Superman know, but this island has been infused with Kryptonite. Cue a dramatic confrontation between Supes and Baldie, Supes on his death bed, some more dramatic rescues, and an anticlimactic ending, and there you have it in a nutshell.

The plot's not too bad, but it's also not particularly inspired. The film carries it off well, and all in all its a fairly passable action movie. But is it any good? Well, this depends on your point of view. From a technical point of view, it is flawless. And by this I mean there is no fault I can find with the film; all the boxes are ticked, so to speak. I did however find it somewhat lacking in a number of respects. The first is that the director does not have an understanding of how the theme music works. This may sound like nitpicking, but the Superman theme music is actually an ingenious composition. Every movement in the piece tells a part of the story of the Mythic Hero's journey, and each bit of the music has a particular significance, but this was not used to good effect. All that has been done is that the title theme from the original score has been a little re-hashed and used in the opening sequence just so they can claim to have respect for the original films, without any true understanding of its application or meaning.

My second gripe with this film is the casting. There have been many incarnations of Lex Luthor, and my favourite has always been the corporate billionaire version, as I find it is the most versatile in terms of story possibilities. I have been saying for years that Kevin Spacey would be an ideal choice for the role of Luthor, because I envisioned him playing this kind of role, of someone who outwardly and publicly appears philanthropic, yet is in fact a murderous and genocidal master criminal. Kevin Spacey is perfect for this, as he is easily able to portray a character as good-natured as he is to portray him as sinister and brooding. Rather than following this route, and using Spacey to what would inevitably have been fantastic effect, director Bryan Singer chose to have Luthor portrayed as an underground villain, and as downright angry rather than sinister. There was nothing wrong with Spacey's performance, but considering that it was him cast for the role and not someone else, I felt that his talent was wasted on such a dry interpretation of the character.

My second casting problem was Kate Bosworth. As I have never seen her in any other film, I do not feel well placed to criticise her talent as an actress, but I will however say that her performance in this film was diabolical. She portrayed a 'teen-angsty' kind of Lois, who came across as being constantly bitter at being unfairly treated because she is a woman (despite this not being the case) for no better reason than feeling like it. There was no chemistry between her and Routh, either as Superman or Clark, and not even any chemistry between her and James Marsden's character Richard, Superman's supposed love rival for her attentions. Overall, her performance was flat, dry, unemotional and uninspiring.

Routh was also, in my opinion, poorly cast. I can see what Singer saw in him as the potential to play Superman, and personally I feel that given a few years seasoning, he could give a memorable performance as the Man of Steel, but as it stands, he is too young and too inexperienced. Spatially, he is a very good actor, and the way he moves is very convincing. But he falls staggeringly short facially and with his dialogue. His voice is horrible to listen to, and lacks intensity, and his facial expressions just seem like a strained and artificial attempt to imitate Reeve's cocky and confident style. As I said, I can definitely see him playing a very convincing Superman in a few years, but I think he needs those few years first. Also, his age doesn't quite work. This ties in with the plot flaw I mentioned earlier. At the beginning of the film, Superman returns having been in space for five years looking for Krypton. The problem with this is that Routh looks young, certainly no older than about mid-twenties, and add to this the fact that he has brown eyes and had to wear blue contacts (contact lenses make your eyes appear much larger), and you have a Superman who would have been well established when he left Earth at the age of about twenty. It just seems wrong to me.

As with the rest of the film itself, the supporting cast were proficient and passable, but again uninspired, with the exception of Marsden who, in my opinion, managed to steal the show from even Spacey. Which brings me to my biggest problem with this film.

***MAJOR SPOILER ALERT!!!!!***

Superman and Lois Lane have had a child together. Superman doesn't know this at first, as he thinks the kid she is dragging around must be hers and Richard's, but it becomes undeniably apparent that Superman is the father when the child throws a piano across the room. I don't have a problem with the notion of Superman and Lois Lane having a child together, but I feel that out of sheer respect for the medium if nothing else, it is not the place of a film director to explore what is quite a significant life changing event in a movie if it has not been done in the comics first. Again, this may seem like nitpicking, but it is justified in my opinion, especially seeing as Lois and Clark are married in the comics, and in the film it appears to be the result of a one night stand (presumably from Superman II, just after he gives up his powers). Superman's relationship with the child and Lois is left extremely wanting at the end of the film. I would expect Superman, on discovering that the child was his, to want to discuss the situation with Lois. What in fact happened was that he went to see the child briefly and then essentially told Lois that he'd see her around. This left me feeling very uncomfortable.

The action scenes in the film were all fairly good, although they didn't have me on the edge of my seat. It is far easier to criticise than it is to praise, but I will say that there were a couple of scenes in the film that were fantastic, particularly the rescue scenes, which very nearly had me wanting to clap and cheer! I did however feel that the CGI looked incredibly plastic in places, especially considering that this movie had a final budget of over a quarter of a billion pounds. Two last points, there were a number of references to the comics, Lois & Clark, Smallville, and the original films, which would appear to anyone who recognises them to be homages, but with the exception of a scene near the beginning with a model train set reproducing key moments from the first two films, these references, like the music, did not appear to be understood, and were seemingly placed in the film at random without any meaning. Finally, it is shown in the film that Lois has won a Pulitzer prize for an article entitled “Why The World Doesn't Need Superman”. There is not a chance that a writer unable to produce a more inspired headline than this would a) win a Pulitzer or b) hold down a job at a 'major metropolitan newspaper'.

As a whole, the film isn't bad, and I will admit that I'll be seeing it again. But I am quite disappointed that I can't say that its an outstanding movie. The film is technically flawless, but it lacks passion and a certain spark. The whole film seems a bit shallow and mechanical, as if produced by a skilled craftsman rather than a talented artist. This I hold Bryan Singer entirely responsible for. His previous work on the first two X-Men films demonstrates this. Fantastically made movies, but flat, lacking depth, and while there is no reasonable fault to be found with them, lacking inspiration and passion. While Superman Returns is by no stretch of the imagination a bad film, it lacks the intensity and energy that made the original Donner movie a classic, and I would class it as more on a par with Superman III and Superman IV than with Superman The Movie and Superman II.

Originally published on The Difference Engine in July 2006

One Month til Superman "Returns"!

One month from today, Superman Returns will be released. By now most people who are interested have seen the trailers, they are available on the official site. I'm not going to give another in depth analysis of these trailers, as there's really no point. The film is out in such a short time that I might as well just wait. I will say however that I am still woefully unexcited about this movie, and every day that passes that nothing happens to make me say 'Wow! I can't WAIT to see this film!", another little piece of me dies inside.

What I would like to talk about however is Brandon Routh. As I have said since the first promotional material for the film was released, I don't think he is right for the part. Granted, I haven't seen the film yet and I could be wrong, but I really don't believe he is right to play Superman. He looks far too young, especially for a Superman who has been away from earth for five years (he can't have been a day older than 20 when he left, as an already established Superman - it just doesn't work), he doesn't have the right physique, in fact he just doesn't look impressive or inspiring at all. But worst of all, nobody knows whether or not the guy can actually act. The trailers show NO dialogue of him as Superman, and only a painfully small amount of dialogue of him as Clark. Why so secretive, especially about the one wildcard in the film, the one unknown, and the one the entire movie hinges on? What the trailers do show is a lot of Kevin Spacey's Luthor. Why? Everyone knows Spacey can act!

So, is Routh right to play Superman? Maybe, I'll wait and see. But he sure as hell aint no Chris Reeve. I've been having arguments with fanboys on internet forums about this (yes, I'm that much of a geek) for a while, and it amazes me how swept away in fads people become. People who had the same opinions as me a year ago now not only bang on about how awesome Routh is going to be, but even go so far as to say how wrong Reeve was. These are die-hard Superman fans, who last year couldn't believe what a travesty the new Superman suit was, who now can't get enough of it and make a point of saying how wrong it can be in the comics.

I find it really upsetting. One of the arguments I've heard used over and over again is the comparison to James Bond. A lot of people say that audiences accept new actors playing Bond all the time, and no one of them is better than any other. Well, this is complete nonsense for two reasons. First of all, Bond is not a visual character to the extent that Superman is, but secondly, everyone knows that Connery is considered the definitive Bond by the majority of fans, and even those who prefer Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby or Dalton will admit that Connery is the people's favourite.

Reeve is considred Superman in popular thought. When he had his accident, and then when he died, nearly every newspaper headline across the world (that's right, I collected them all! - Ok so I didn't but I'm sure you get the point) announced not news of Christopher Reeve, but of Superman. In Chris Rock's Bigger and BLacker show, he says "Superman can't walk! What sort of a @!*&ed up world do we live in where Superman can't walk! That's like finding on the news that Aquaman drowned in the tub!" Reeve is not mentioned by name once!

In fact, so sure am I that Christopher Reeve is the one, true Superman, that if Superman was suddenly real and made his debut in the 'real' world to prevent some huge disaster, not only would he look like Christopher Reeve, but the Superman: The Movie theme music would start playing out of thin air because even the very fabric of the universe would recognise the presence of the real Superman himself!!!

Life in the Bus Lane

Well, it seams that life doesn't seem to move as fast as one might like, even if I am a month away from turning 25 and starting to feel like time is running out! (Excuse the amateur dramatics). I've decided that I want to train to be a physics teacher. It's something I'm extremely passionate about, and I definitely think that I'd be good at it. Only problem is, my degree isn't really good enough. What I need to do in order to begin Initial Teacher Training is something called a subject enhancement course. These are designed for graduates who have a degree in a subject different to the one they want to teach. Now, here's the catch. I can't get accepted to ITT unless I complete the subject enhancement course; but I also can't get accepted onto the subject enhancement course unless I've been offered a place on some form of ITT. Catch-22? It certainly feels like it!

Hopefully, by talking to the right people, I will be able to get a kind of double conditional offer. I'll be able to do the enhancement course on the condition that I get accepted onto a Qualified Teacher Status programme on the condition that I do the subject enhancement course. It's not as complicated as it seems. The only other problem is that the enhancement course doesn't start until January, meaning it will be September 2007 when I finally start my teacher training! In the mean time, I have to work for the rest of this year, and with a degree as mickey-mouse as mine - well, I can't actually get a job that I couldn't have got without it! I've managed to find a new job that I start next week, doing pretty much the same thing as what I'm doing now, but for a little bit more money (but unfortunately not significantly more), but with guaranteed work for at least the next three months.

Now, on to my money woes! I still owe my landlord a backlog of rent, and to cut a long story short I need to give him just over a thousand pounds to cover me up until the end of June (I'm still in student accommodation). With the money I'm earning, I can just about afford to pay that, but I can't afford to put anything aside so that I can actually move when my contract is up! At the rate I'm going, I'm going to have to try and get a second job working in a bar on weekends.

Oh well, life trundles on. I guess for now, I just have to deal, and try as best I can to fit in time for my uni work. C'est la vie...

The Adventures of Matt

Whew! What a week! I've had explosive arguments at work, family issues for both me and the other half, managed to get drunk (twice) for the first time since new year, and still found time to have my first driving lesson for seven years! (Not while drunk ;) )

Aside from that, this week has been the same as any other. Still working in a boring, poorly paid, dead end job that forces me to compromise my integrity; and now everyone at work hates me because I refuse to turn a blind eye to certain 'inconsistencies' (unfortunately I can't really say much more at this point in time). Still having trouble finding a graduate scheme I can get onto that I actually want to do, worrying about how I'm ever going to get onto the property ladder, and not doing a damn thing about any of it.

On the plus side, I am now working (sort of) on no less than three graphic novels, which with any luck I might get interest from a publisher (hopefully DC - but I'm a realist). In the mean time, I still need to find a literary agent that handles this kind of stuff, and find the time to actually work on them between my day job, taking time to de-stress after work, uni work, learning to drive, play guitar better, and a whole heap of other stuff. Man, do I wish I was organized...

Fun with Superman Images!

The Great Depot Robbery

So, a gang of theives have stolen what could be up to £50 million from a security depot in Kent. It has been all over the news this week. Media rection has been mixed, but I found it particularly interesting when I heard one breakfast television journalist comment that we must not glorify these criminals and think that they managed to succesfully pull this off without anyone getting hurt, as the wife and child of the manager who they pulled over in their 'police car' were deeply traumatised by the ordeal.

Yeah right.

These men have succesfully pulled off the biggest heist in British history, and not a single person has been killed or injured. The woman and child traumatised? I seriously doubt it. I would imagine they were well looked after and constantly reassured that no harm would come to them throughout the entire episode. Can I prove this? No. But if I were going to pull off a job like this, that's certainly how I'd do it.

Police have uncovered a trail of clues, and have made press statements claiming they are hot on the heels of this gang due to their slopiness. Do people actually buy this crap? Look at what we know; as I said above, they managed to actually steal £50m. That's no easy feat, but to do it without killing or even hurting anyone? That's impressive. The police have asked why certain vehicles used in the heist have been found burned out and some left with all their forensic evidence in tact, and why the theives left the CCTV footage in place. Slopiness? I think not. Whoever did this is obviously intelligent, methodical, and undoubtedly working with someone on the inside. The police have been telling us that the theives got sloppy and that is how they are going to catch them. Frankly, I don't believe it, and I don't think the police do either. Of course, they have to put on a brave and confident face for the public, but I doubt the police force in this country, who I personally have faith in (to an extent) will be examining this 'evidence' as anything more than what it is; an obvious red herring.

There is of course the matter of the key clue, the wads of cash from the heist that a woman attempted to pay into her bank account, but I'm sure that all fits into the masterplan somewhere.

Am I endorsing what these people did? Certainly not, but I am endorsing how they did it. No, we mustn't 'glorify' these criminals for pulling it off without hurting anyone, but if truth be told, I'd take people who steal £50m without hurting anyone over people who hospitalise others on the street for a fiver, or worse still, just for the hell of it. Let's make sure we remember not to glorify them either.

2006 - The Year of the Gay Movie?

2006 will long be remembered as the year of the gay movie. Straight director Ang Lee's already critically acclaimed 'gay cowboy movie' Brokeback Mountain is making huge waves and has been tipped for countless accolades on the awards circuit this year. But another less conspicuously gay film is due for release this summer, and is sure to be one of this year’s biggest box office heavyweights.

It may (or may not) surprise you that the film I am referring to is Superman Returns. Although not overtly a gay movie, Superman Returns is a clear attempt by openly gay director Bryan Singer to subvert the macho manly-man all American image attached to Superman and make him more gay friendly.

This may seem like a bold and unsupported statement, but if looked for, all the signs are there. Some people have argued that Singer is extremely professional and would never let his personal views influence his work. This is untrue. Evidence of the influence of Singer's sexuality can be found across his entire body of work, but I'll just use a couple of his more famous films as examples. Firstly, The Usual Suspects, the movie which put his name on the map, was in my opinion a masterpiece, and unfortunately unequalled by Singer since in his career. Nonetheless, the movie is positively rippling with homoerotic tension between all the lead males, but specifically exemplified in the relationship between Verbal Kent and Dean Keaton. Perhaps a better known example is the famous coming-out scene in X2. Iceman, along with Pyro, Rogue and Wolverine, is hiding out at his parents’ house, when they return and he breaks the news to them that he is a mutant. In response, his mother says “have you tried...not being a mutant???”

So, if looked for, signs of the influence of Singer’s sexuality can be found in his work, but are they present in Superman Returns? I would argue that they are. For a start, the whole look of the new Superman is wrong, as discussed in a previous post. But not only is it wrong, in my opinion it makes for a more gay-friendly looking Superman. For a start, the broad-shouldered, barrel-chested physique we are all familiar with has been dropped in favour of a sleeker, more slender, and ultimately more feminine body. Granted, in recent years the ‘men-like-women’ look, popular in the music scene for decades, has come into its own, and I’m sure if I were to survey a group of women I would find the majority find this type of man more attractive, but that doesn’t make it right for Superman. Add to this the extremely feminine low waist line, Brandon Routh’s pretty boy looks, and Bryan Singer’s plot revolving around Superman trying to find his place in the world and feeling like he doesn’t fit in, and you have what is in my opinion another film absolutely bursting at the seams with homosexual undertones.

Just my opinion? Perhaps. But I guess I’ll have to wait and see how it all turns out. The worst part for me, though, is that as horrible as I find this new big screen incarnation of Superman, whether it succeeds or fails both critically and financially, I don’t know what the likelihood is that I’ll be able to see a different cinematic interpretation within my lifetime. And that’s what worries me the most.

Ok, well that is my third and final rant about the movie…I promise! For now, I’ll just wait until I see the film. I hope to god that I’m wrong about all my reservations, and I’ll be there on opening night with my fingers crossed, so until then when I can come up with a full review, that’s my last word.

Free iPod!

Living the Dream...

Earlier this week, I applied for two jobs at DC Comics. They are both general admin jobs, but hey, it's a step in the right direction! I cannot say how much I want to get a job with DC, it's pretty much one of my lifelong dreams. What I really want to do is write Superman, but to even contribute in a small way, and be just a little part of the character's history - well, that is all part of the dream.

It's very hard to become a writer for DC. They do not accept submissions of written work, only artwork, and even then it's pretty difficult to actually get any work out of them. One of the most fundamental tips you will hear from anyone in the biz is that you shouldn't start out trying to pitch an idea for a comics line's biggest character; after all, these franchises are worth millions to them. The best way to start out is by pitching a new idea, or something for one of their smaller characters. I've actually done this - I've been working on a script for a graphic novel for some months now, and I haven't got the first clue how I would submit it to DC. Sure, I could approach another publisher, but I really want to go through DC, and (you'll have to excuse my big-headedness here) I'm pretty sure that if I could get them to look at it, they'd want it to be them that published it too.

But at the moment, I would be happy to just work there. So, in the meantime, fingers crossed!!!

God is in the Details, Perhaps

Horizon – 26th January 2006: ‘A War on Science’

Last week’s Horizon on BBC2 was an interesting look at the conflict between the theories of evolution and intelligent design. As well as broad coverage of key players in both camps, the programme focused on the court case in Dover, Pennsylvania, in which members of the school board wanted to replace evolution in science classes with intelligent design.

The key to this case was that if the teaching of intelligent design was found to be motivated by religious beliefs, it would be unconstitutional and therefore illegal, as the US constitution calls for a separation of religion and state.

Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins savagely attacked intelligent design, and was joined by David Attenborough and others. While the programme focused more on the cultural implications of the conflict between the two theories, the science behind them was obviously also important.

The evidence for evolution is undeniable, and can only be argued against with the belief that God put this evidence in place to make us believe in evolution. While this can neither be proved nor disproved, a belief in this stance would necessarily mean the abandonment of all reasoned thought – but this is another subject entirely.

The argument from intelligent design is that if examples of what is called ‘irreducible complexity’ can be found in nature, there must be an intelligent designer. Irreducible complexity takes the argument from evolution that complex forms of life evolve from simpler ones, and argues that an example of a biological system that cannot have evolved from a simpler form, because it is so complex that it can only work in its complete, developed state, would disprove Darwin’s theory of natural selection

The ID camp posits that flagellin, a biomechanical swimming instrument found on some bacteria, is evidence of irreducible complexity. This system is composed of fifty individual parts which apparently serve no function on their own, and therefore could not be genetic a legacy from simpler biological systems. The evolutionists argue that this is not the case, and that the individual parts do serve their own functions.

While both arguments are interesting, if not compelling in their own right, the programme failed to address one of the fundamental aspects of this conflict. Intelligent design was not placed within the broader context of arguments such as the cosmological Anthropic principal and the teleological argument, but worse than this, the origin of life itself was not even mentioned.

Evolution is a theory of the development of life on Earth, and it’s gradual adaptation through purely natural processes from simple to complex forms. But it is not a theory of the beginning of life. Evolution takes as its most fundamental base the concept of biogenesis; the observation that all life is from life. Biogenesis has never been seen to be violated.

Abiogenesis, the spontaneous formation of life from non-living matter, has never been observed. While the theory of evolution helps us to trace back our origins to simpler forms of life, it does nothing to answer the question of how life began in the first place. The fact that intelligent design provides a possible solution to this shortcoming of evolution and needn’t necessarily be directly opposed to it was not even mentioned. The absolute origin of life, as opposed to its gradual development and evolution did not get a look in, and all this in light of David Attenborough’s comment that science is based on observation. While evolution has arguably been observed, and the evidence for it definitely has, abiogenesis has not, and therefore any theory which claims to explain it is surely, by Attenborough’s reckoning, unscientific. And this would include arguments from intelligent design and evolution.

Originally published on The Difference Engine

Superman: The Teaser

June 30th 2006 is the date that all of comic book fandom is eagerly anticipating: the release of Superman Returns . Principal photography on the not-just-big-but-record-breaking budget film is now finished, and some of the footage has been arranged into the first teaser trailer. The trailer is being shown in screenings of the new Harry Potter film , and was aired in the US during this week’s episode of Smallville , and is now also available over the web.

The teaser does exactly what it says on the tin: it teases you. It gives away absolutely nothing about the film, leaving you yearning for the few more snippets you will be allowed to see before the film is released. The only dialogue is an archive voice over from Marlon Brando ’s original recordings as Jor-El, Superman’s Kryptonian father. All it does is show you that a new Superman film is coming; nothing else.

The trailer can be found here , so I’m not going to give a description of its content. The flying effects look fantastic, and it’s nice to see Superman’s cape floating behind him in space rather than flapping like it’s in the wind. The external shot of the Daily Planet looks really cool as well. Unfortunately, the trailer is a snapshot of what the rest of the film is going to be; all style and no substance.

This seems to be a reflection of Singer’s directorial method of late. My apologies to fans of the X-Men movies , but they suffered from the same problem. Yes, the films were visually stunning, as the new Superman looks to be, but they lacked substance in the narrative, as Superman looks like it’s going to as well. Singer gained notoriety for his classic The Usual Suspects , which was intense and featured a gripping storyline with an exciting twist at the end. Where did his dramatic flare as a storyteller disappear to?

On top of serving as a preview of what we can expect when this movie hits cinemas, the trailer also further demonstrates Singer’s complete disregard for the established Superman mythology. It shows a young Clark Kent using his superpowers which, according to the comics, did not develop until late adolescence. This may seem trivial, but in the comic book continuity there is a very good reason for Clark growing up as a normal child; it gives him an understanding of the value of human achievement. Like in Smallville, as a teenager, Clark did play on his high school football team, but without superpowers, and he still won trophies. As a result, he understands the value of pushing yourself to the limit, of trying to achieve that little bit more.

Of course, this is a minor change that I personally have no problem with; after all, it is not really that essential to the characterisation. But it does once again shed light on the fact that Bryan Singer has never picked up a Superman comic in his life. Chris Nolan based Batman Begins on the Batman: Year One graphic novel , which was circulated to all cast and crew so that they could better understand what they were creating. Not so with ‘Returns. In fact, so flagrant is Singer’s contempt for the established Superman ethos that in this new movie Lois has a child by another man. This is indisputably a very large nail in the coffin of the Superman mythology. It can play out in one of two ways; (i) There is no future for Lois and Clark, as she now has a family and has moved on, or (ii) Lois ends up with Clark, despite having had a child with someone else, demonstrating that she has no respect for good old fashioned American family values. Fair enough, in the real world people don’t always stay together when they have children, and ‘Singer’s just tryin’ to bring Supes into the 21st century, man!’ But Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, a reflection of our dreams and aspirations, not just another morbid account of how life really is with some special effects thrown in.

At least in the X-Men films there was Wolverine , a charismatic lead for people to relate to. In this film, the lead is a gormless nobody without any power or presence on screen. And there’s a good reason for that too. Singer has made himself the star of this show: the film is all about him and his vision. For anyone familiar with comic book history, this may sound familiar. In the 1960s Bill Finger, an executive at what is now DC Comics , agreed to camp up Batman for TV because he didn’t really like the character anyway. The show was a huge success at the time because it touched on something new in pop culture, but looking back all anyone can do now is cringe and ask, what were they thinking? It seems that this is what will happen with Superman Returns. The film will be a huge success, but in the future we will look back in despair and embarrassment and ultimately conclude that, as ‘cool’ as it may have seemed at the time, it just wasn’t Superman.

Sorry, Bryan, but you really had no business making this film

Originally published on The Difference Engine

Superman Returns and the Undiscerning Public

The forthcoming movie Superman Returns has aroused some controversy. This controversy is not just regarding the changes being made to the image, persona and ethos of the character, but also over the rights of dedicated fans to defend their disapproval of these changes.

Let’s begin by looking at some of the better decisions which have been made by Warner Brothers and director Bryan Singer. First of all, Singer has decided to keep the original score composed by John Williams for the first film. A wise choice, considering that the sound of the fanfare almost audibly pronouncing the name “Superman!” is as iconic a part of the character as the logo on his chest. Secondly, the casting of Kevin Spacey for the role of Lex Luthor is an obvious, if not altogether inspired, choice. Spacey’s incredible diversity makes him perfect for the role of someone so dark and sinister who manages to project a public persona of philanthropic integrity. Finally, the shots which have been revealed so far of Brandon Routh as Clark Kent look fantastic. He looks geeky, clumsy and awkward; exactly as Clark Kent should look. The question of how a simple pair of glasses can fool the world has been around as long as Superman, but Christopher Reeve was able to convince us of the Kent/Superman duality so well because he played the two differently. Superman is macho and confident, while Clark Kent is a clumsy goof. The pictures of Routh portraying the Kent side of this persona appear to work well because he looks geeky. Also, with his big spectacles and a mop of hair flopping down over his forehead, most of his face is obscured, further reinforcing the believability of the secret identity. In the original radio series Bud Collyer achieved this effect by reading the Clark Kent lines in a tenor voice and lowering it to a baritone for Superman. This duality is an essential part of the character that was sadly missed in the television interpretation starring Dean Cain.

Now to move on to the inevitable downside. Two weeks ago, the first official picture of Brandon Routh wearing the Superman costume was released. Needless to say, every two-bit fanboy across the globe rushed to get his two-pennies worth heard on the Internet forums, myself included. What amazed me, however, was that all over the media the suit was described as being ‘classical’ and ‘traditional’, that it was faithful to the suit worn by Reeve, and well received to widespread applause. First of all, none of this is true. The suit is only traditional compared to the leather suits worn in Singer’s X-Men movies, which are obviously a much further departure from their original comic book designs. But also, how can a newspaper with a bold headline reading “First Look at Routh as Superman!” proclaim underneath that the picture has been well received? No-one had seen it yet! Furthermore, a recent opinion poll showed that a 52% majority in fact do not like the suit. A recent Sandy Collora article explains why;

The biggest and most obvious problem I feel with it, is the fact that everything about it, including Brandon Routh himself, is just too small. The symbol, the neckline, the shorts, the boots... It all looks wrong to me. Really wrong. If anything, Routh looks more like an odd, little too old, doesn't quite fit into the costume, version of Superboy to me, rather than a real Superman. It lacks power, presence and an overall cohesiveness that makes it somehow look like someone dressed up like Superman, but it's not SUPERMAN.
And later;

Superman's costume is already designed, it just needs to be translated into a different medium, from the page, to the screen. Nothing needs to be "updated", changed, or re-designed…Which prompts the question: Why change the costume? Well, I think the answer to that question lies somewhere in the fact that this film is basically a 200 million dollar commercial to sell action figures and toys.

To highlight these points, one fan has actually computer modified the image to show what a huge difference just a few small alterations to the look can make. In the modified image, Routh does look like the traditional Superman.


I think there are two more important points not mentioned by Collora in his article. The first is to do with the shorts. I realise that the ‘pants over the tights’ thing has been a matter of contention for a long time, however, I feel that this feature actually adds to the masculinity of the look, if it is co-ordinated well with the rest of the suit, and worn by someone convincingly macho anyway. In the original, unmodified picture, Routh is wearing what look to me like French knickers. The second is that his hair is not black and his eyes are not blue. Dying his hair is a simple matter, and Orlando Bloom’s contact lenses in Lord of the Rings were perfectly convincing, so why could they not be used here?

Ok, that’s my rant about the suit out the way. Another problem with the film is the casting of Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Although she is undoubtedly a talented actress, she does not embody the character at all. Lois Lane is a strong feminine role, and Kate Bosworth just looks like a ditsy Superman groupie. I’m reluctant to make any suggestions, but there are other actresses who could have more adequately portrayed this part.

Now to move onto the plot. The synopsis is that Superman has been away for several years, possibly back on Krypton although this has not been confirmed. First of all, Krypton was destroyed. Second of all, why would Superman abandon Earth, the planet he protects and loves so much, for several years? I reserve judgement on this until I see the film, but the script writers better have come up with a pretty damn good reason. During his absence, the people of Earth have learned to get by without him, and the movie explores the question, does the world really need Superman? First of all, this is a rehashing of Spiderman 2, which explored this aspect of superhero mythology. Why have they not come up with an original story idea? Secondly, Sandy Collora points out how young Routh looks. Admittedly, he is older than Christopher Reeve was when he first wore the cape, but Reeve looked old enough to be Superman, and Superboy has been played by someone of 30 in a TV series. It’s how old you look that’s important. With Routh looking so young, one can’t help but wonder how young a Superman he was when he originally left Earth if he has been gone for several years.

Some people have suggested that the new suit sets the tone for what will be a darker and more serious film. The simple fact is that Superman always has and always will be a symbol of hope. He can’t be everywhere all the time to avert every disaster or tragedy, but the people of Metropolis know every time they see that blue and red streak flash over them in the sky that they are safe. People love Superman; they don’t question whether or not they need him.

That pretty much sums up what I feel is going to be wrong with this film. No doubt it will be a box-office smash, and the ensuing merchandising takings will be through the roof. People who have never read a Superman comic and can barely remember the original movies will flock in their millions to see the new film, and will probably love it as well, seeing how people can be so easily bought these days with flashy special effects and action sequences. Unfortunately for true fans of Superman (who have been criticised for raising these objections), this movie will represent a blemish on the otherwise immaculate history of a well loved cultural icon.

Originally published on The Difference Engine

My First Entry

On the advice on of a new friend, I decided to finally share my thoughts with the world in my own blog. This is my first post, so don't expect much. I'm sure over time I'll eventually find something interesting to say and post it on here, but in the mean time this is all I've got.