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.