I still have major concerns with the tone. And I don't like Pa Kent
saying that "maybe" Clark should have let the kid die, and Pa Kent being
the one saying Clark should hide himself. Pa Kent is supposed to be
where Clark's morality comes from (not Jor-El), and frankly every
version since (especially SMALLVILLE's) has come up really short next to
Glenn Ford's brief perfect scene.
But! I must admit this trailer (like the Jor-El V/O teaser) stirred something in me.
I
love the line where young Clark says "What was I supposed to do? Just
let him die?" not in a "Am I doing the right thing?" way, but rather in
the sense of a rhetorical question, as if saving the kid was something
he didn't, and would never question, because it was the right thing to
do.
That's the kind of ingrained morality and heroism Superman needs to have, and I hope has through the whole film.
If
there needs to be the theme of "what is heroism?" etc. addressed, then
the way I would hope it is approached is to have Superman be the sole
voice for morality and heroism in a world that has lost faith in that
kind of behaviour. To have everyone doubting Superman, rather than
Superman doubting himself. Y'know, the Army being convinced he must be a
scout for an Invasion (which, with Zod's arrival, would be a likely
conclusion to jump to), and the reporters asking themselves "what's in
it for him?" and everyone being stupified by the idea of someone doing
the right thing because it's the right thing to do. But Superman himself
should never waver in his goodness. He should be the lone voice in the
woods, calling for people to take a stand. And thereby become an
inspiration to others. I can see the potential for that, and I hope it's
what we get. Whereas RETURNS tried hamfistedly to address
similar issues but failed to make it's hero a paragon of virtue and
failed to demonstrate that the world did, in fact, need him. Supes in
that film actually causes more harm than good by returning.
Since
it's all shot digitally, I kinda wanna see a version where the colour
saturation has been bumped in the other direction, just to see if I like
that better. I feel like the dour visual styling is half my problem at
this point.
Here's a teaser poster for Zach Snyder's upcoming Superman reboot feature:
Now what's wrong with this picture? Well, for one -- why the hell is
the U.S. army arresting Superman? And two -- why is everything so bleak?
I mean the colour scheme. Look, fellas, I get that THE DARK KNIGHT
TRILOGY was successful, but "grim n' gritty" is NOT Superman. This is Superman, for me:
Superman is big. Superman is bright. He's primary colours, he's
outrageous situations, he's heroism in the face of unyielding danger. He
stands for hope and he stands for good, and his adventures are larger
than life. And he can do all of these things and still be a badass.
Because my Man of Steel is nothing if not a badass. If you want
examples, you don't have to go any further than the original Siegel
& Schuster Superman comics, where the Man of Tomorrow dispensed
social justice with righteous fury:
Here's a quote from Snyder that I find telling:"We have great
respect for the canon. I would say it is a clashing of stories and
ideas. Superman is the king-daddy of all superheroes - to make him work
is a big deal. The big challenge is if you can make people feel 'What
would you do if you were Superman?' That's what we went out to do as
far as we could. Superman's always been this kind of big blue boy-scout up on a throne that nobody can really touch, so we tried to make him relatable." Superman CAN be relatable. But it's not in making him darker, or
grittier, or angrier, or making him conflicted about who he is or why he
does what he does. Clark knows that doing the right thing is the right
thing to do. Simple as that. He knows that the best use for his powers
is helping people. In the original comics from the 30s/40s, he knew
that without even knowing he was from Krypton. He didn't discover his
heritage until he'd been Superman for a while already. Clark may be from Krypton, but he was raised on a farm in Kansas and that's
how you make him relatable. He's a good person. Pure and simple. He's
not a god, he's not a judge, he's an ideal. He leads by example. He's
there to inspire us to believe that we can be better than we are. He's a
champion of the oppressed, fighting a battle for truth, justice and
the American Way and what's more American than the ideal of
self-improvement? He fights that battle in and out of costume -- after
all, freedom of the press is the 1st Amendment, and a reporter should
stand for truth and justice. Superman shouldn't be some all-powerful stone-faced god, but that
doesn't mean you turn him into flawed, feeble, Peter Parker, either.
All that navel gazing about "what makes a hero?" and "am I doing the
right thing?" is for Marvel heroes. Superman knows what the right thing
to do is. So does Batman -- even if his interpretation of "the right
thing" is different from Clark's. That was one thing that bugged me
about Nolan's Batman -- where was the grim determination? Where was the
vow to war on crime? Nolan's Batman became a big sobby mess who wanted
to give up once his childhood crush was killed. I think the issue may be that the creative forces behind MAN OF
STEEL have had their greatest success adapting the works of Alan Moore,
Frank Miller, etc. Batman, Blade, Watchmen, 300, and so on. Those
aren't exactly properties that speak to a great view of Superman.
Granted, Bruce Timm was able to go from doing a great BATMAN to a great
SUPERMAN, but generally speaking the techniques that work with one do
not work with the other, unless that technique is "be true to who this
character is". And who is this character? From Superman #1, 1939:
He is the Champion of the Oppressed. He is a hero. Granted, Bryan Singer claimed to be a huge Superman fan too, and also
fucked up royally. But then, his Superman was just Donner's Superman
with more CGI. 60% of the dialogue was just unironically cribbed from
Mankiewicz. RETURNS was a nostalgia trip and what new elements it did
bring to the table were questionable at best. But it sounds like Snyder
& Co. are falling into the same trap: probably an hour and a half
into the movie before we actually get some Superman I'm betting, with
the first two acts just being Clark biding time having innner conflict
while the audience grows restless, and then he'll fight a villain we've
already seen before because heaven forbid a Superman movie use a
villain from his comics rogues gallery that wasn't in one of the two
Donner movies. There is an animated Superman feature called SUPERMAN VS. THE ELITE,
which is I think a great response to the whole foolhardy notion that
Superman needs to be darker and more extreme to fit in with the 21st
century. Here's a page from the original comic the feature was based
on:
Snyder and co could do better than looking to Mark Waid's SUPERMAN:
BIRTHRIGHT for inspiration. That flawed origin/reboot doesn't hold a
candle to what is the undisputed masterpiece of Superman comics. To me,
someone looking for who Superman is should look no further than ALL-STAR
SUPERMAN by Morrison and Quitely. This is Superman, for me:
