Last week, I wrote about the new Superman movie but decided not to spoil anything, particularly the one thing that kicked me out of the magic of the film and simply wouldn't allow me to get lost in the last part.
What was my problem? Superman has a kid.
Yeah, I can accept that Superman and Lois had sex. (Remember that this movie takes place five or six year after Superman II and in that movie Superman gave up his powers to be with her and there was that scene where they're under covers in the Fortress. I think there's a good chance that sex was had.) My problem is with the sex producing super spawn.
First, there's that whole he's an alien thing and what are the odds that his alien sperm can combine with human ova? Not good. But I've come to accept human/alien crossbreeds. I'm a Star Trek fan and the second best character on the original series was a hybrid. So, the half human, half Kryptonian thing doesn't bug me that much.
What does bug me is how a super kid takes away from Superman being special. (I have this problem with the whole Superboy, Supergirl, super dog thing that's going on in the comics right now. And don't even let me get started on the super crap they pulled in the seventies. Yuck.)
To me, Superman is an outsider. No matter how alone one of us humans may feel we are still surrounded by other humans who, in the most basic ways, are just like us. Superman, on the other hand, is completely isolated because he's an alien, which would be isolating enough, but he also has powers far beyond those of mortal men, which sets he even farther apart from everyone else. No matter what, he's not one of us. Even when he pretends to be, by being Clark, he's not that successful. Clark's not a popular guy with most humans. He's just a guy trying to make live his life day to day. Sure, Clark has some friends (hell, in this movie Jimmy has a man-crush on him), but even they look at him and roll their eyes in and it's-just-Clark-being-Clark kind or way. This makes Superman the ultimate outsider who tries to do good and actually does good. That's why he's Superman
Giving him a son takes that away. He's no longer the only one of his kind. He's no longer unique. Now he isn't doing the right thing because he knows it's the right thing to do, he'll be doing the right thing because he wants to teach his kid responsibility. And the teaching his kid thing isn't noble, it's mundane. Every parent teaches (or at least should teach) their kids the difference between right and wrong and try to teach them responsibility; it happens every minute of every day all around the world. And while I do think it's really important, it's not super.
So, when that piano went flying across the room to squish the bad guy, I wasn't cheering along with the rest of the crowd (who then started whispering, "Superboy"); I sat there wondering why this had to happen. I was so disappointed that I considered walking out (and I've never walked out on a movie, not even for Battle Field Earth) because I knew I wouldn't be able to really immerse myself into the movie again and enjoy it the way I had before. (I'm willing to admit that the scene where Superman visited Jason and spoke the words of Jor-El, passing words of wisdom from one generation to the next, was touching, but it didn't redeem the kid.) I didn't leave though. I had to stay and see how the movie turned out, but I couldn't become as invested in the film as I was before the damn piano went flying.
7 comments:
I have more problems with the insinuations throughout the movie that Superman is Jesus Christ.
I am sorry modern-day writers have expanded on a story that you know so well, but the kid was cute. And did a good job. :)
Q
I don't mind that the story was expanded, that happens with serial stories, it just seemed to ruin the core and the kid was such a surprise that I was totally removed from the story that was left. (I think he did a good job, too.)
(This may be totally insensitive and blasphemous, but since the Jesus allusion was brought up, he's on my mind.) Imagine if there wasn't just one Jesus Christ in the Bible, but lots of them and each one could do everything the original can. Doesn't that make the original less special? Less important?
I get that the kid was there so the son could become a father and now the ultimate orphan (as Bryan Singer has said he sees Superman) has a family, but, for me, it doesn't work. But I'm a stickler who picks at nits on almost every movie I see. I can't help it.
I am picky too, but not generally a fan of comic books to begin with.
Superman was better than the most recent addition to Batman though. But again, I am not one to really comment--everyone else says I am crazy and that it was the best of them.
Q
I've never admitted it before, but I didn't think the most recent Batman was the best, either. It was okay.
When it comes to movies based on comics (or books), especially superhero comics, I try not to get too caught up in comparing the two. I try to think of the two media like I think of Greek mythology. Each storyteller takes the same idea and puts his or her own spin on it. (For me, the big ones in mythology are the differences between Homer's telling and Ovid's telling of the Trojan War. Yes, I do know that Ovid was Roman and not Greek.) The job of the storyteller should be to expand on the mythology or do a better job retelling an old favorite. That's what makes a good comic book movie.
(And now I have to resist falling back into the insane English stuff I'd argue with my teachers about in college. No one really wants to read that.)
The best examples of movies doing a better job retelling an old favorite are the two Spider-Man movies. The best examples of movies taking ideas of the story and spinning a new one and adding to it are the first two X-Men films.
But that's just me.
It's Virgil, not Ovid. Shit.
Ovid was Roman, though. He just didn't write The Aeneid.
(I like to read it)
Q
(Read what?)
Post a Comment