6 Punches Director Zack Snyder Must Land in Man of Steel
Aw, how cute. Now pat her on the rear and go punch something!
6) Lose the Love Story
In classic iterations, the relationship between Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Superman was relatively tangential to the larger adventure. The point of a Superman story was to showcase his battle for truth, justice, and the American way, not to linger on his frustrated sexuality. While certainly delivering the most earnest and believable portrayal of Superman on film, Richard Donnor also started an unfortunate trend in the character’s lore by focusing heavily on romance in 1978’s Superman.
It wasn’t downright terrible in that first film, which only devoted a couple of scenes to romance and otherwise remained focused on Superman’s crusade. However, Superman II dialed it up significantly, making romance the centerpiece of the narrative. At least then, it was leveraged properly to frame a conflict. Clark’s desire to abandon his role as Superman in order to take up with Lois collided against the clear and present danger of Kryptonian super-villains. He could not both have his love and protect her world. He had to choose. That was at least relevant to the genre.
However, future iterations took the loving too far. ABC’s weekly hour-long Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman conscientiously focused on romance in an attempt to net female viewers. It was far more of a soap opera than a super-hero tale, culminating in perhaps the second-worst decision in Superman’s narrative history (we’ll talk about the absolute worst later), the marriage of Lois and Clark. Unsurprisingly, the series didn’t last long beyond that union’s consummation. It turns out people liked the chase a lot more than the catch.
Surprisingly, the comics followed suit, marrying Lois and Clark mere months before his untimely “death” at the hands of a marauding juggernaut called Doomsday. But clearly, the comic writers regarded the marriage as a context in which to tell stories, not the story in and of itself.
Back on television, the long-running Smallville followed in the footsteps of Lois and Clark, focusing largely on a frustrated high school romance with Lana Lang. Romance was such a central aspect of the show that fans came to reference Clark and Lana collectively as Clana.
The worst offender came on the big screen in the form of Superman Returns. The film had no excuse to fail. Building off the established Donnor mythos and starting from an inspired premise, Singer’s tale of a Superman five years removed from his adopted home never delivered on its promise. The opportunity to explore why the world does or does not need a Superman was wholly squandered to wring hands over Lois’s new boyfriend, lay face in palm upon the reveal of a bastard child, and put down a run-of-the-mill cartoonish plot by the recently liberated Lex Luthor.
The problem with all this romance is not only that we don’t care. Superman shouldn’t either. He’s got better things to do. It is not a duty which drags him from what he wants, but the rational choice to pursue a greater value than romantic love. Ultimately, he can best serve Lois by keeping their relationship in the proper context. Want her? Yes. Yearn for her? Sure. But giving in to love as Superman is not an option. It’s like a teacher getting involved with a student or a therapist with his patient. Superman cannot properly be Superman and maintain that kind of relationship.
Losing the love story frees Lois up to be much more than a sexual prize. She becomes what she was in the old serials, an attractive journalistic rival working aloof alongside the story of the century. To Clark, she is both a threat and a temptation. To Superman, she is the personification of humanity at large — flawed, ambitious, courageous, and vulnerable. What he has to teach, she is often unwilling to learn. He loves her, not by succumbing to romantic impulse, but by continuing to patiently inspire.
I agree with nearly everything you said. I was worried about this article at first, but you nailed it. Your section on losing the love interest is spot on. I do have one minor disagreement. I think that Donner’s 1978 Superman spent the perfect amount of time on Krypton. With CGI being what it is, I’m sure the creators can make beautiful cities carved into the glacier caverns like a crystal Petra or something, but don’t linger all day on it, and for goodness sake don’t try to depict Kryptonian society too deeply.
I firmly agree on the American way, but I feel Hollywood simply won’t allow it. I’ll be happy if he isn’t some agnsty teen.
In regards to limitations. I would love to see a return to the earliest iterations. I think flight is necessary, as opposed to leaping tall building in a single bound, but other than that, I think Action Comics #1 is a fitting depiction. I wholeheartedly agree that the Superman as a demigod has gotten wildly out of hand.
Born among the gloom of the Great Depression, Superman has always been an inspirational figure. His fight for truth, justice, and the American way is a choice to defend both life and liberty. He must take up his mantle for reasons which he believes in, and we must perceive his belief as authentic.
The difference between DC’s main superheros and Marvel’s is in part the times of their birth — DC’s in the late 30s, as the Depression continued and World War II loomed on the horizon, and Marvel’s in the early-to-mid 1960s, when Vietnam loomed and it became safe among those on the left to question the moral certitudes of the past. It makes the Marvel universe more emotionally ‘flexible’, but at the same time more ambiguous — which led to the negative reaction to the attempt to make Marvel’s one 1940s superhero, Captain America, into an ambiguous figure over the past several years).
The same applies to DC’s stars. You can’t make Batman or Superman untethered-to-their-past, ambiguous heroes, and Nolan didn’t with the former, which is what made his trilogy so successful. Bob Kane made Bruce Wayne a millionaire, in order to explain how he could afford all that cool stuff — turning him into a OWS sympathizing, George Soros type of rich guy would have dulled in large part what makes the character work, and going against history in the new Superman movie would create the same problem.
Using the characters and then jettisoning the context and/or background histories guarantees it’s going to come across as insincere and/or e clumsy effort to shoehorn the writer/director’s 21st Century PC sensibilities into established lore. And part of the reason the 60s Batman TV was done the way it was by Fox was because the people making it couldn’t see playing the show’s mythology straight, as the 50s Superman TV show did, without aiming it at children. It also served to make any ideology connected to the character irrelevant during a very politicized period, since adults weren’t supposed to take the character seriously — something fans wouldn’t stand for today, as shown in the reaction to “Batman and Robin” that killed off the original reboot and led Time Warner to try again with Nolan.
I don’t think Lois and Clark caused the marriage. DC (John Byrne) intended it in the first reboot, but put it off because of the series, and “killed” him instead.
Can Hollywood do ANYTHING without a love story? Gulliver’s travels, Brave New World, they somehow MUST have one. (This is why it’s basically impossible to do anything really authentic about religious Jews; they cannot do a story without contact between the sexes.)
I think it was John Byrne, anyway. But he was married after being resurrected ,and the marriage was not caused by the series.
It’s possible to have love in a story without it being a love story. I think “The Dark Knight” demonstrates that well. The triangle between Bruce Wayne, Rachel Dawes, and Harvey Dent is an aspect of the story, not the story in and of itself. The relationships are a context for the events which define the narrative. That’s the style Snyder should aim to emulate. Hopefully, Nolan will be a good influence on him in that regard.
Yes, that makes sense. (Have to admit, did not see any of the new Batman movies yet. Looking forward to it soon.)
I’m a bit the other way on the powers. The first reboot took a Superman with powers based on certain definitions, and turned him into a sort of D&D/video game character, with power levels. Basically, enough people could just beat him up.
That’s not Superman.
In the old movie serials, Superman was pretty weak in that he regularly got beaten up in fist fights with the bad guys or otherwise bested during the cliffhanger. The TV version was barely harmed by anything short of kryptonite, which meant the big bads went after Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen instead. That’s one reason for Superman to resist his urges and stay single: his significant other would forevermore be a target for all the bad guys. Not sure how long anyone would stand up to that kind of strain. For that matter, would it even be morally right for him to put someone in that kind of position?
Anyway, I do hope the new movie will stay far away from the camp that wrecked the previous ones.
I was thinking silver age, which I grew up with. But please, no D&D. Have rules, not power levels. The “danger” aspect was the usual excuse – unless of course, she fell in love with Clark, of course. One of his limitations is his fear of causing too much damage. I got so upset at the recklessness in the 80′s movie, that I actually yelled in the theatre, “get out of New York!”, embarassing the teen-ager I took with me. He should have drawn them away.
The nice part of the old TV series is that (to my childhood self, anyway) Lois looks like a somewhat older, professional woman, not the youngster in most other incarnations. The part I liked about Lois and Clark was the parents.
Kate Boseworth in Superman returns was just a horrible decision by the creators. The film was supposed to take place five years after the events of Superman II, and Kate was 23 at the time the picture was released, and she looked every bit of 16. Hardly the age of veteran reporter, let alone a verteran reporter plus five years.
Plus, she acted like a petulant teenager rather than a woman who had witnessed what she had supposedly witnessed. It was very Bella Swan in retrospect. It ruined any enjoyment I could have had, which wasn’t much, of the film.
Not a comic book fan, but this was well done. Give Walter Hudson a slot as a primary PJM columnist!
Well, he’s a gentleman. That’s for sure.
First Note: Since the reliance on foreign sales has become so crucial for any Hollywood movie, the “American Way” will always be in danger of being curtailed in favor of the “United Nations Way”.
Second Note: Should Superman “leap tall buildings” or “fly”?
Third Note: Larry Niven’s “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex” brings up some important points regarding the Romance issues.
You raise a point I neglected to include in my advocacy for the American way. Indeed, the foreign market has been the justification used by filmmakers in recent years to blunt or wholly remove positive references to America. But that’s a weak excuse, particularly when a character’s American heritage is essential to their identity. Part of the audacity of restoring the American way is doing it in spite of the foreign market. Done properly, I think you would find it well received overseas. Again, the idea is not that you have to be American to follow or appreciate the American way.
I’m all for flying. So long as there are rules which make narrative sense, the fantastic need not be avoided.
Another essential narrative choice:
7. Make Clark Kent an actual person.
Throughout the Silver Age, Superman was portrayed as alien to the core, someone who put on a human disguise for convenience and show. The strongest, most successful aspect of the 1986 reboot was the way it portrayed Clark Kent as Superman’s real face. His birth notwithstanding, Clark was a Kansas farmboy at heart, the legitimate son of Jonathan & Martha Kent in any senses that mattered, and a human being in the senses that mattered the most. Despite the glasses and the occasional misdirection, post-reboot Kent was a rounded, reasonably competent fellow, and certainly not a disguise or a shell. This made Superman into someone the reader could actually understand and like, not just admire.
If Singer can include some small sense of Superman’s essential, genuine Clark Kent-ness in the limited time and focus that a movie allows, he’ll strengthen it immeasurably.
Goyer has ruined so many scripts and franchises (Blade, Ghost Rider, Jumper, The Crow) and Snyder values style over substance every time, so their track record is not confidence inspiring. Goyer’s involvement in the latest Batman trilogy was saved by the Nolan brothers oversight. C’mon, shaky-cam Superman? My expectations are at about the “Meh..” level. Superman was never a crab fisherman!
Captain America, whose whole schtick is to be super patriotic didn’t once say the word America in the Captain America film. I’m dead serious. Go rewatch it and you’ll see this. There is no hope for that to return in Superman. They don’t want to alienate the foreign market.
Um, he introduces himself as “Captain America”. His name is Captain America and his costume (which they got just right) is an American flag. Not sure what movie you saw but it obviously wasn’t Captain America.
Why are my comments not being posted? They have not been in violation of PJ Media’s guidelines in the slightest.
“Romance” wasn’t “downright terrible in the first film?”
I beg to differ.
In one of the most mind-blowinginly silly things ever in film, Clark flies backwards around the earth, to reverse its spin (I’m no physicist, but wouldn’t this wreck things like climate and tides, resulting in the deaths of millions?) and “turn back time” (cue;Cher) and save Lois!
Even as a fourteen year old I found this “cringe-worthy.”
While I’m no fan of the random powers written into the films, I must defend the time travel aspect of Superman II. Supes didn’t turn back time by reversing the spin of the earth. He traveled back in time by flying faster than light. He makes multiple orbits because if he flew in a straight line, he’d be very far from the planet when he’d gone back far enough. To Superman, and to the camera following him, the earth and everything on it appears to move backward because he,and we, are going back in time. Granted, suspension of disbelief is still required, but backwards time travel via FTL travel is a standard scifi device.
Nice try to defend the scene but it doesn’t “fly”. He is obviously reversing the spin of the Earth because he fies in the opposite direction both to reverse time and to stop the backwards travel. If he was simply traveling back himself, he wouldn’t have to fly against the spin nor would he then have to reverse the direction, he would just stop at the point he wanted.
Of course I meant Superman: the Movie. Superman II had the magic cellophane. There’s no rationalizing that.
And how silly of Superman to end his time-reversal at the point where he can save Lois from a wrecked car caught in the earthquake, but doesn’t go back just a little further to stop the missile which caused the earthquake!
Gah, I hate that meme!
Superman did not reverse the Earth’s spin. He flew fast enough to go back in time – the reverse of the spin in the movie shows him going back in time
Sadly, some of the best stories will never be made into good movies because producers insist in adding things
The recent animated Superman vs. The Elite is a good example. The original story, a one issue over-sized comic called “What’s so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way”, was brilliant – the movie? not so much
Then look at Watchmen. While very pretty, the ending, changing the source of New York’s destruction to Manhattan, makes no sense. The whole idea was Manhattan was the lynchpin of America’s defence. Veidt got him to leave Earth and had a genetically engineered psychic monster teleported into New York. It created images in peoples’ minds of an extra-dimensional invader. All Earth needed to unite. Having Dr. Manhattan destroy cities worldwide would have the same effect if nukes hidden by the US accidentally went off in cities around the world. No “whoops, sorry” would cut it
V for Vendetta went from a very genuine, deep thought experiment on the nature of fascism, anarchy and individual choice to “we hate George Bush and gay Muslims love freedom, yay!”
Bias against comics prevents many people from enjoying some really good stories like V for Vendetta, Watchmen, 300, What’s so Funny About Truth, Justice and the American Way, The Life Eaters as well as so many series that would absolutely rock as a mini-series, such as Transmetropolitan, Preacher, Sandman and Starman
Good points all, in the article. It’s just my personal opinion when I say though, that I’m not sure that making Supes ‘grim-n-gritty’ in the vein of the Batman trilogy is going to work. The “Big Blue Boy Scout” is the characterization that nearly all people are familiar with. The comics themselves are so far to the left now and pander to fanboys so much that I can’t stand reading them.
There’s one other thing that bugs me: The costume. Bring back the classic one! I think this might be related to the Siegel & Schuster lawsuit against WB & DC though. They’re doing everything they can to avoid paying a single penny to the heirs.
Post-modern literary comic character. Yawn. What will this story be based on – “For Whom the Bell Tolls?” “Grapes of Wrath?” The only thing I am certain of is that they’ll find some way to suck the fun right out of the idea and bring Supe down to Earth like they did Batman. Batman’s only a superhero in his own mind. In reality he has a support system that includes a burgler and old men who are the real deal breakers. I’m apologizing for his super powers right now. Nolan should produce period pieces and leave the fun alone. Fun doesn’t need to evolve to sober.
I would like to make a small protest in regards to chucking the romantic angle of the story. I know this is all a cerebral discussion. But Superman comics were always my favorite purchase as a young teen in the late 60′s, partially because of the tremendous crush I had on that Man of Steel. Is Lois Lane, or Lana Lang, for that matter, good enough for him? Of course not. Did I always regard her as something of an idiot to be fooled by such a weak disguise as a pair of hornrims and a severe hairstyle? Yes, assuredly. But the romance was there in the comics during those days, not just in the Donner film. Lois definitely liked Superman, and he certainly didn’t turn her away. What do you think saving her life over and over was all about? If he was viewing her as representative of “humankind”, and not seeing her as a special woman in his life, he would eventually turn a deaf ear to her cries for help, and reason that the world at large was his true focus. To deny that the attraction between Superman and Lois wasn’t really there from the beginning is kind of puzzling to me. That’s definitely not the way I remember it. But maybe this is just a Guy vs. Chick thing. Guys are not really in to the relationship, thinking it gets in the way of all the cool stuff, like kicking butt and flying.
The Films of the 70′s and 80′s were as dismal, boring, and uncreative as the underpowered, pollution control comprised cars from Detroit during the same period! And Superheroes have been made more ordinary every year.
It would take a Zack Snyder to make the breakthrough needed.
Now, if we could just get Peter Jackson to remake “Dune”…..
It is a movie, and a superhero one to boot. Your trying to make it somehow realistic. It is fantasy. And if you are looking for something more realistic, then why take out the romantic part. It has become a part of who he is, and part of his vulnerability, as well as his inspiration. In the end, it is still a movie, a flight of fantasy.
I was going to write a long, point by point rebuttal of this but then realized I don’t need to. The plan fact is this: someone who thinks the Clark/Lois romance is irrelevant at best and then applauds a Batman who kills is simply unqualified to offer an opinion on anything comic related. I take him just as seriously as I do a food critic who thinks Olive Garden is just fantastic.
One of the biggest problem with Supe is the oldest one. Glasses? That’s it? He puts on glasses and no one recognizes him? He takes off glasses, puts on tights and no one notices?
Plenty of comic fans have addressed that issue over the years, none more successfully than:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClarkKenting
“Superman cannot properly be Superman and maintain that kind of relationship.”
—A STEAMING LOAD OF HORSEAPPLES.
The relationship between Superman and Lois is FAR more pivotal to the mythos than you think!
You got one thing right.. this eternal yearning nonsense has got to go. but only because his creators never meant for it to be in the mythos in the first place.
in a long lost story by Jerry Siegel dating back to 1940, “the K-metal from Krypton,” the relationship between Superman and Lois was supposed to radically change– Due to Superman (temporarily) losing his powers due to a chunk of “K-metal” (the conceptual precursor to kryptonite, which was FAR more interesting than kryptonite itself, ironically) passing close by the earth, Lois discovers Superman’s secret identity. The plan was that Lois would become a co-conspirator, aiding Superman in his neverending battle for truth and justice as a partner… the story, alas, never went to print, and we got decades and decades of comics with Lois as a gormless gadfly, eternal pest, perpetual hostage, useless wedding ring-chaser and perpetual threat to Superman’s secret identity….
Till somebody finally wised up and had the 1990s Lois (a much more intelligent and competent Lois) fall in love with, and marry, CLARK KENT. Who then revealed his secret to her, and she became what she had always been intended to be; Superman’s partner. (old Blue Boy finally caught a break.)
No comics fan ever appreciated, or even for a moment bought, the notion that being the Big Blue Boy Scout required a mandatory lifetime sentence of Blue Balls. We damned well know that the hero gets the girl, and only an idiot imagines he’s “protecting” her by keeping her on a pedestal— where villains can easily take pot shots at her— instead of in his arms and at his side. We instinctively know our Campbellian myth, even if we couldn’t begin to spell it out; the hero isn’t complete until he obtains the damsel as his bride…. otherwise he is left foundering in half-a-man adolescence. (Which is why Joe Quesada needs to be skewered on a spit and roasted alive over slow coals for what he did to Spiderman and Mary Jane.)