Closing Arguments by: Alan Noah

Well Bruce, in the interest of summing things up, I’m just going to leave you with my final thoughts on why Bryan Singer should get to make a sequel to Superman Returns.

We seem to agree that Returns had a lot of the necessary elements of a great superhero movie, but you want more: more fun, more drama, more excitement. And you know what? That’s fine. There is always room for more, room to make things better. You reference The Dark Knight, and I think that’s a great example; Batman Begins was an amazing movie, and The Dark Knight was able to take the franchise up even higher than its predecessor. Here’s another example: X-Men and X2 directed by - yes, you remembered correctly - Bryan Singer! Superman Returns had all I want in a Superman movie - action, drama, romance, and suspense. Could those things be ratcheted up in another movie? I suppose so. And I am hopeful that we will get to see Singer do just that in a sequel.

Have you really forgotten how awesome the last Singer superhero sequel was?

You’re right that there are many different directions you can go with the Superman character. I’m not convinced that any particular path is the “right” one, and given the incredible popularity of the character, there are countless fans/writers/producers/directors who are likely to be SURE that their portrayal of the Last Son of Krypton will be the best. How do I know? Because it happened! As I mentioned earlier, the Superman film franchise was in limbo for nearly two decades while people battled it out over who would get to restart it.

And Bryan Singer won out in the end.

Deal with it.

I’m sure that Mark Millar’s intentions are pure, that he has great ideas, and that he could do great things with the character. But I’m also sure that there are dozens of others in (and countless more outside) of Hollywood with similar feelings. The reality of the situation is that these things are hard to put together, and Singer already has the pieces in place to do a follow-up. Bringing in a whole new team to reboot a franchise just because it isn’t unanimously loved by everyone in the world is quite simply extremely counter-productive. A reboot would surely make the truly dedicated haters of Superman Returns happy, but the greater question remains: If you don’t like Richard Donner’s or Bryan Singer’s interpretation of Superman, what makes you so convinced that you (or I, or the majority of the movie-going public) will go ga-ga for another director’s? The bottom line is that there is no guarantee.

How can you insult Richard Donner?  HE DIRECTED THE GOONIES!

Just one last tangent, I swear. Did you see the direct to DVD Superman: Doomsday movie? I did, and I have to tell you, I hated it. There was tons of action and prolonged battle scenes where Superman gets his ass kicked by foes just as powerful as he, first Doomsday and then a renegade Superman clone. Metropolis gets destroyed so many times it defies even the slightest ounce of logic, and plot/story/character are all given the backseat to make room for more shots of Superman getting mangled. Now, as much as I hated this movie, there are people out there who loved it. It hurts my brain to understand why, but they did. Some folks want to see that sort of thing. For them, the ratio of character development to things going boom was perfect in that movie, even though for me it was perfect in Superman Returns.

If you like seeing Superman bloody - a lot - you’ll love this straight to DVD crapfest.

I disagree that a “very, very, very small percent of the population admire Superman Returns,” but I invite people to respond in the comments to gauge just that. I think that one thing we can all agree on is that we want to see quality Superman movies, and that we don’t want to have to wait painfully long stretches for them. Singer made a great movie, and he deserves the opportunity to make an even greater follow-up, just as he did with X-Men.

See? He loves Superman!

Closing Arguments by: Bruce Edwards

Yeah, let’s put this puppy to rest.

Singer might have won the battle to make his Superman movie, but when he did, he screwed it up. As we both point out, there are TONS of ways to do this anew, tons of ways to get it RIGHT. So let’s see if we can make that happen, shall we? I don’t know what the ‘right’ way is, but I know it isn’t Singer’s way.

Keeping Singer on board is going to guarantee that the man who screwed it up in the first place is given a chance to screw it up again. If they get something entirely new to do it, at least you’re increasing the chances that it will IMPROVE rather than get worse. So right there’s your reason to give someone else a shot even if ‘everything is in place’.

I don’t know that Millar will do the BEST job possible, because, as you said, it’s subjective. But I’m convinced he’ll do a damn sight better than Singer did. He’ll bring to it everything the franchise needs, and the main thing the franchise needs is to shake off the needless restraints of the first few attempts at the Superman mythos.

What’s the point in adhering to them? Why stubbornly hold on to them? It adds nothing but a vague and confusing sense of nostalgia. We need to forge ahead, we need to see Superman with a fresh pair of eyes, and Millar’s are the eyes I want guiding me on the trip.

I don’t know which ‘big American action director’ he has in mind, but I’m sure that as long as it’s not Brett Ratner or McG or Rob Cohen or some silly thing like that, we’re guaranteed at least a fun movie, which is more than can be said for “Superman Returns”.

Millar knows what he’s doing and deserves his shot, just as Singer at one point deserved his (X2 was pretty kick ass, after all). Superman needs to saved, the franchise needs to live again, and the guy who everyone hoped would bring it back and didn’t simply doesn’t deserve to try again.

I’m also curious to see what people think–I’ll warrant that the majority will be on my side. PROVE ME WRONG!!

Round 4 by: Bruce Edwards

Ok, yeah, I didn’t take any slight on Millar’s work from you, I’m just pointing out he knows what he’s doing. And yes, if you break down virtually any superhero story, you’ll run into basically the same series of events I pointed out and which you pointed out happen in Superman Returns. Perhaps I was too vague. But the point is, even though those things did happen in Superman Returns, they didn’t happen in a compelling or exciting way. The movie as a whole is overly interested in its emotional minutae, in grinding in the point that Superman’s life is hard and sad and difficult. And while we want to be reminded of that on occasion–that having lots of power is not necessarily an easy thing–we don’t want the entire movie to be like that. We have no idea of what Clark Kent/Superman is like. We know what makes a cutesy joke, we know he regrets his decision, and that he loves Lois, but aside from that, we don’t really get to know him like we should, and thus, we don’t get to like him. And we really should like him, he’s Superman, for the love of god.

Sooperman? Is…is that you? I CAN’T TELL!!

And of course I know that movies have story arcs. The fact that you’re pointing that out proves that you’re grasping at straws now. Superman Returns cannot stand up to rational argument. I understand. To whit: if you’re going to tell a story successfully, and have people be invested in it and involved, you need to make them care. Singer stumbled mainly in making the story so simple to figure out (who DIDN’T know that Lois’s kid was Clark’s son and that problems would ensue?) and the villain’s plot so simple and, frankly, boring, as well as making the main character’s plight so basically uninteresting that you’re left with a whole lot of nothing to hold onto during the movie’s running time. We know his love for Lois has to go relatively unrequited. We know he’s a good guy who won’t steal her away from her husband/boyfriend/whoever. And when he DOES seem to try to seduce her, we’re a little creeped out, because that’s not how Superman should act. It’s not the right kind of character complexity. You can make a character complex in his choices and we’ll buy it and relate to it and get into it. But when he seems to act in a way that doesn’t jibe with our image of the character, going so far as to be a high-flying lothario, we say to ourselves: ‘Woah, this is Superman?’ And on TOP of that, when we’re fully (and rightfully) expecting to be watching Superman save the day, we’re instead watching him tread the waters of modern relationships. Really? That’s why I came to a movie about a guy who wears a cape and flies through stuff? SOCIAL DISCOMFORT?!!

WE ALREADY DID THIS! IT STILL HURTS!!

And my point with the young Clark business is that it makes sense to show how he was before he was Super–that makes him more relatable. What I’m mocking is that this was Singer’s one and only shot at making the audience relate to him and he dropped the ball. He didn’t include enough of it or make it compelling enough, and then we’re stuck with the post-trip-to-space Superman Who Is Sad All The Time. I don’t care if Smallville is on the air. I’m not here to watch multiple stories in order to get the point of one. If I’m watching ONE Superman movie, I want THAT Superman movie to be able to meet the very simple and necessary criteria of: 1.) making me like the main character, 2.) making me care, and 3.) since it’s a superhero movie, have it be exciting. You want to make a mopey character drama? Go ahead. But don’t call it Superman.

Naturally, I disagree with your blasphemy viewpoint. I’m looking at the movies objectively, as I always have. Look, I’m a comic book geek, tried and true. I have loved comics my whole life, and any chance to see a comic book movie was a treasured experience. But even then, the first few Superman movies were more of a ‘take what you can get’ experience. They did some things right, I will warrant. But they are NOT the end-all be-all. The way Donner told Superman’s origin is not the only way you can tell it. The touches of intentional camp and ‘comedy’, no matter if they’re the fault of the director or the studio, are still there and still grating. Gene Hackman was a ridiculously non-threatening Lex Luthor, and don’t get me started on Ned Beatty. This would be a MUCH longer article if I went through all of those problems, so I will avoid that, but suffice it to say, even if you like those movies, they can be improved upon. There are different ways to tell the Superman story. And, yes, there are better ways.

I will take a moment to re-address the ‘turning back the Earth’ thing. That doesn’t make sense in any way, shape, sense, or form, even in a movie about an alien who can fly and shoot lasers from his eyes. It doesn’t make sense in the confines of the movie’s own logic, and therefore has no place in the movie itself. It takes you out of the experience, it makes you say ‘wait a minute…’ and turns what SHOULD be an emotionally impactful scene/coda into an exercise of having to put up with onscreen bullshit in order to accept the rest of the movie. It’s unfortunate to say the least, it’s indefensable, and no matter how you slice it, it doesn’t work. And he doesn’t have to go to someone else to turn time back, he can find a device or something, or they could have even tied it into Luthor’s plot–like if his scheme somehow involved a time machine or the technology to make a time machine, and Superman had vowed to never use it because you can’t–and shouldn’t–screw with time or something, but at the end he breaks his vow because he’s so emotionally bereft he HAS TO, THAT would make sense with the rest of the movie. But tacking it on to the end like that, out of nowhere, just smacks of laziness and desperation. Let’s leave it at that.

So apparently the argument comes down to ‘the movies weren’t fun enough, how do you make it more fun?’. That is an exceedingly simple answer.

GIVE SUPERMAN SOMETHING TO DO.

Don’t make us sit around and watch him be awkward. Don’t try to get away with making Lex Luthor funny, which would distract us from the fact that he’s not ingenious enough to actually give Superman a run for his money without using Kryptonian technology and whatnot. Give Superman a real threat–even if it is Lex Luthor, but a Lex Luthor who comes up with a credible, dastardly plot, and one who palpably despises Superman and everything he stands for. Better yet, though, do what Superman II did right (again, those movies did some things right) and give him villains that can match him in powers. Make the movie about Superman saving the world, not about Superman having a hard life.

You can tell us Superman is lonely. You can show us how hard his life must be. But don’t make the ENTIRE MOVIE about it. That simply isn’t fun. What is fun is Superman doing superheroic things, meeting challenges that we think he can’t overcome, and then overcoming them. For most of the movie, not for 1/3 of the movie. Their balance was all wrong in Superman Returns, yet ANOTHER problem this movie had. The pacing was GLACIAL.

I will point you to some examples of how Superman can be fun: look at the episode of Superman Adventures when Brainiac comes to earth. Brianiac is an artificial intelligence–an alien robot–who travels throughout the universe gathering all the information of dying planets into a vast library of lost cultures. He also has a menagerie of the last alien beings from those dying planets, so he’s basically like this amazing alien museum curator…or so we think. He’s come to Earth to present to Superman the last information from Krypton–its history, culture, meanings, etc.–and Superman is of course thrilled. But soon he learns that what Brainiac does is destroy each planet himself and retain the information for his collection, an insane and power-hungry world destroyer who’s here to do the same to Earth and make Superman his pet. And more importantly, he knows how to strip Superman of his powers, AND gets Lex Luthor to be his accomplice (by duping him into thinking he’ll be the king of the world when Brianiac takes over), so Superman fights someone with a direct connection to his homeworld, who seduces him by making him feel connected in a way that no one on Earth could make him feel connected, then turns everything–all of Superman’s hopes and dreams–on their head when he reveals his master plan. THAT’s a good Superman story. THAT’s how you make it fun.

Superman should be different than Batman and James Bond because he represents ideals and a totally different look on life than those characters. He’s not about the grey areas, he’s not about being a vigilante–he’s about devoting your life to helping others simply because you can and because that’s the right thing to do. Mark Millar pointed out the OPPOSITE ideal in his “Superman: Red Son” miniseries, so he clearly understands what makes Superman work and knows how to play with our expectations in engaging, fascinating, and fun ways. Want more proof? Unfortunately I don’t have full-on scans to show you, but here’s a review of one of his early Superman comics that clearly shows his respect and admiration for the character, his world, and the meaning of Superman in the public conciousness: http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/04/29/into-the-back-issue-box-27/ .

My point is, there are ways to make Superman a great character, and Singer and co. didn’t do that. They did their take on the character, which is weirdly and needlessly attached to someone else’s take on the character (Donner’s), and all of this staying within one awkward viewpoint of the character is basically spinning the entire concept around the drain, wasting our time with a story that we don’t care about. The main problem is that they simply dropped the ball. They took it in a direction that doesn’t work, plain and simple. Even though you represent the very, very, very small percent of the population who admire Superman Returns, the fact is that Superman is not currently in the public conciousness, and that is why the series needs a reboot.

That is why the $180 million it made isn’t enough. ‘The Dark Knight’ just made $155 million in THREE DAYS. That’s the level of ‘must-see’ Superman should be inspiring. That is what Hollywood expects. And they are not going to get that when you have a misguided filmmaker attempting to do something with a beloved character that no one else can get behind. This is an ICON. You need to treat him like one. ‘The Dark Knight’ takes LOTS of liberties with the Batman/Joker/Two-Face story, and it’s FANTASTIC, it’s epic, it’s clever and multi-facted and emotional and exciting. Batman is as much of an icon as Superman, and they proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that it’s possible to take an icon and do right by it.

I have no problem with doing something different with Superman, not at all (and I don’t believe I ever mentioned that I DID have a problem with it). All I want is for them to do something different that works. You want Superman to have a son? Great! Make him have a son! Plenty of story opportunities there. But don’t shoehorn him into a plot that I already don’t care about, merely as a device to show that a superhero shouldn’t abandon his responsibilities. The whole point of the movie, by the way, is rendered moot by the fact that people are clamoring for Superman to survive at the end. They go from not caring about him to the whole world holding its breath because he threw a big rock into space? THAT makes Superman lonely? They really needed to decide what the movie was about and stick to it. It was all over the place, it was a mess, AND it didn’t have a story that made me (or most of the rest of the world) care.

And when you say that these movies aren’t made for kids, you’re wrong. All superhero movies are made for kids, even ‘The Dark Knight’. The filmmakers know that kids are going to see this, and beyond that, they know that the 30-year-olds like us who get excited by these movies are actually listening to the little kids inside our heads and hearts. There’s a part of us that never grows up, and that’s the part that likes superheroes. Sure, you can make their lives darker and more meaningful and that’s going to appeal to our more-mature sensibilities, but the bottom line is, we like to see guys in capes doing stuff we could never do. It’s fun. And Superman Returns completely, completely missed the mark on that.

I don’t know exactly what Millar has in mind. That is, of course, impossible until he tells us. But I do know that he is a more-than-capable creator with a deep love and understanding of the character. And I know that Superman deserves better than Superman Returns. So any way you shake it, make mine Millar!

Round 3 by: Alan Noah

I want to start off by saying that my argument in no way is meant to insult Mark Millar or his work.  That’s not my point at all.   I would like some clarification from you on several points, however.  You say that Millar made Superman an intriguing character because “He got overwhelmed, he got tricked, he got his butt handed to him on occasion, but he kept trying and, of course, eventually triumphed.”  I agree with that statement.  But guess what, Bruce?  All that jazz happened in Superman Returns!  He was *tricked* into thinking he could stop Luthor’s growing island, but he didn’t know it was kryptonite.  By the time he realized it was, he was *overwhelmed* by it’s properties, and could not just super-speed off the thing and destroy it from space.  At that point, he *got his butt handed to him* by Luthor’s goons, who left him for dead.  But he knew that he had to *keep trying* to stop the thing, and yeah, he *eventually triumphed.* So what’s wrong with Superman Returns again?  What is so wrong with Singer’s interpretation of the Superman character?

That it took too long to get there?  Movies have climaxes, that’s how they work.  Stories are introduced, developed, and then they come to a head.  You would rather have the main plot points come together in Act One?

All you need?

I also don’t understand your point about how SR used the scene of a young Clark Kent discovering his powers.   You seem to be mocking it, but then you say that it makes sense to show that Superman is one of us, and that you don’t like what followed.  Either way, that scene was not instrumental to Returns, its purpose was to show Clark remembering simpler times.  Would you have preferred a more complete origin story, a la Batman Begins?  Such an idea was discounted for one pretty hefty reason: Everyone knows the tale of baby Kal-El coming to Earth.  Richard Donner did a great job of telling that story in his first movie.  And as for how a young Clark Kent learned to hone his powers and what sent him to become Superman, well there’s a show on television that’s setting out to tell that story.  You can say what you will about Smallville (I myself have pointed out its flaws many times) but the fact is that the show is around, and people are watching it, and it makes no sense to do one version of an origin tale on the small screen and a different one simultaneously on the big screen.

You’ve got to learn to float, before you learn to fly…

Getting back to Donner, you do realize that calling his movies “overrated” is pure blasphemy, right?  You are aware that you are talking about the greatest superhero movies of all time, right?  (With the possible exception of Batman Begins/The Dark Knight.)  I almost don’t even know where to begin in defending those movies.  Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder, Gene Hackman, Marlon Brando, and Terrence Stamp were all terrific, and will forever be identified with their respective roles.  (Less so Brando, but you get my drift.)  But you don’t like them because Superman made the earth spin backward to reverse time?  Come on, Bruce.  Spinning the world backwards to reverse time makes as much sense as any other way time travel is possible, with no offense to the flux capacitor intended.  Had Superman gone to a mystic who could have sent him back, where would the drama have been?  No, he had to do it himself.  When he was flying to stop Luthor’s missiles, he was going as fast as he could.  But after Lois died, he pushed himself, to his limit and then even further.  He knew that he had to *keep trying* to eventually get time to go back.  The shout that Christopher Reeve’s Superman let out, and the look of pain on his face said it all.  The execution was brilliant.  (P.S. Any questions you may have about faulty execution in Superman II can be addressed directly to Richard Lester, and you should watch The Richard Donner Cut at your earliest convenience.)

You will loathe and detest Richard Lester in a whole new way after watching this.

But overall, you feel that the Donner movies and Superman Returns were not fun enough. OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, how would you have made them more fun?  Or better yet, how can Mark Millar make them more fun?

There is a recent trend with movie franchises, such as with Batman and James Bond as the most obvious examples, to take a step back with these characters and ask, “What would happen if these people really existed in our reality?  What would they be like?”  In the case of Batman, Bruce Wayne would be an extremely disturbed man who would have be so dedicated to his ideals of justice that he would be forced to live his life in the solitary pursuit of those ideals.  James Bond also would have a dark streak, as he has to be willing to kill without remorse, and he would also have to spend his life on the move, living mission to mission, and woman to woman.  I have thoroughly enjoyed these new movies, and they have been well-received by critics and fans.  But after watching them, I don’t really want to be Batman or James Bond.  There are fun elements of those lives, but the tragic elements far outweigh the fun parts.

There’s nothing fun sounding about a quantum of solace.

So why should Superman be any different?  Should it be great to be Superman just because he can fly and has heat-vision and freezing breath and all the rest?  Maybe, for a kid, who wouldn’t understand the other side of it.  But these movies are not targeted to kids - they are targeted to us, that oh-so-key demographic.  And for us, we are given a more realistic view of what it would be like to be Superman: Lonely.  Superman, though not a God in the most literal sense, is able to do pretty much anything.  He could be stopping robberies and murders every day.  And saving earthquake and flood and tornado victims.  And fighting aliens and magical creatures from other universes.  But you know what he can’t do?  Take a vacation.  Bring Lois to a secluded beach and sip mojitos in a hammock while a steel drum plays somewhere in the distance.  When Supes goes off searching for Krypton, it’s not a relaxing getaway for him - he is seeking out clues on his species, his original home, so he can feel less alone.  Then, when he comes back to Earth, he feels even more alone than ever, now that Lois is engaged and has a son.

But wait!  Jason is his son!  So maybe there is hope for Superman yet, that he isn’t destined to live his life alone.

And THAT is the point of introducing the son.

Jason in his terrible twos.

You say that the presence of the son is a “needless” addition to the Superman mythology.  Well shucks.  Bryan Singer did something new, and took the tale of Superman in a new direction.  How horrible!  You also complain that Singer copied the Donner films.  So, to sum up, you want a Superman movie to be totally new and original, but not do anything totally new and original.  Who knew it would be so easy!  Remember my point about making these movies hard to please for the fanboys?  I think you just proved it for me.  Thanks, I owe you a Coke.

This has your name on it, Bruce.  On the back though, where you can’t see it.

As for Jason’s first act of heroism resulting in a death, it’s not like he maliciously murdered the guy.  He didn’t know his own strength, and he was reacting to someone threatening his mother.  Had the piano simply knocked out the henchman, someone out there would have cried on his favorite message board “Thatz stoopid!111!  He shoulda died  Pianos totally kill people, this movie is unrelaistic!”  Again, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  Jason has yet to learn about his powers, so it makes sense that the results of him using them could be dangerous.

So Superman Returns wasn’t profitable enough, you say?  Man, I hope I never get a job working for you!  “Alan, you only made $180 million dollars!  You’re fired!”  Rottentomatoes is not gospel, it is merely an indicating tool of what people think about movies, just as box office receipts are.  The movie business is a tricky thing, you see.  Spider-man 3 and the last Pirates of the Caribbean movie made tons and tons of money, but they were panned.  Guaranteeing a movie’s success is impossible, but that isn’t the point at hand.  The question is how does rebooting a young franchise make things better?  It’s still too early to say how financially “worth it” it was to reboot the Hulk, but it is interesting to note that the first weekend numbers for The Incredible Hulk were DOWN from the numbers put up by the Hulk.  Why, considering that it was better received by fans?  Because pretending that a recent film never happened is confusing to a lot of people (not hardcore fans, I’m talking about average Joes now), and you are risking the gut reaction of ”Well, if these guys are admitting their last movie sucked, what guarantee do we have that this new one will be any better?” from millions of potential ticket buyers.

$180 million means as much to Bruce as it does to this guy.

So, the question remains, HOW, specifically, would Mark Millar, or anybody else for that matter, make a better Superman movie?  Millar says that he would want to update the character for the 21^st century, but for the life of me I don’t know what that means.  As I said earlier, Returns had all of the necessary ingredients of a Superman movie, as well as keeping in line with the recent trend of “realism” in these types of movies.  So how should Superman be made more current?

• After saving people, Superman asks them to be his friend on MySpace?
• His cape has ad space for sale?
• Superman fights terrorists?  Bin Laden would be captured in a minute - then what?

Huh?

Maybe a 21st Century Superman would be more ethnically diverse.

Round 2 by: Bruce Edwards

Oh, Alan. There are SO many reasons to reboot this franchise. This might be a long post. Or SERIES of posts. Let’s start the proceedings with a few bona fides, shall we?

Mark Millar enjoys being a frigging genius with a fine chianti

Mark Millar is widely considered one of the best comic book writers working today, hands down. He’s one of the few out there who can take a property–seemingly any property–get to its core, and make it a fun, exhilarating, surprising read. He understands BIG characters and BIG situations, and no one is ’bigger’-no superhero is more well-known or well-loved the world over–than Superman. Millar’s singular talent is to take on larger-than-life heroes and both make them seem human (largely due to clever, realistic dialogue and well-thought-out, complicated relationships), and make them seem capable of handling extinction-level events in such a way that YOU care too. He’s very good at the ‘WOW’ factor of ‘can you believe he just did that?!’, but he’s also very good at the ‘I believe that this jerk of a scientist would beat his wife, and I also believe that she would try to cover up out of shame’ kind of incisive relationship interplay.

I also remember, way back when, really thinking that the Adventures of Superman cartoon (the companion series to the stunningly excellent “Batman” cartoon in the 90’s) was an ingenious blend of how to make Superman work, and so picked up a few issues of the underappreciated Superman Adventures comic written by a then-unknown (to me, at least) writer by the name of…you guessed it…Mark Millar.

Superman Saves

I remember being struck by how well he nailed the Superman character and overall Superman world. It was evocative of the sort of fuzzy 1940’s heyday of the Max Fleisher cartoons–everything was clean and pleasant and looked like what we wish the world would look like; art deco, streamlined, HOPEFUL–but was shot through with some real intelligence and grown up, competent storytelling. Lois Lane seemed like a real tough-as-nails city reporter who liked what Superman had to offer because no other guy could stand up to her. She didn’t care to notice if Clark Kent was Superman because she was too busy chasing the next story. And the villains rocked–they were capable of destroying the world, but all too often succumbed to the great achille’s heel of hubris or over-confidence, relying on their power and strength and assuming they’d succeed.

The Superman of Millar’s Superman Adventures comics was the opposite of that, an everyday sort of guy–a guy raised by good farm folk from the middle of the country–who feels it’s his responsibility to use the incredible powers he has to do good and stop the villains that no one else can stop. He got overwhelmed, he got tricked, he got his butt handed to him on occasion, but he kept trying and, of course, eventually triumphed. And THAT’s the way you make Superman an intriguing character.

Superman Would Like The Terrorists To Not Fly The Friendly Skies

Contrary to your claim of understanding the character, he’s not ‘a god’, he can’t do ANYthing, he can just do more than you or I ever could. And the thing is–there are bad people out there who have equal or sometimes greater power than Superman. Or, in the case of Lex Luthor, they’re just regular joes who are able to figure out how to hurt him real bad. And there’s your drama, your conflict. The sort of conflict that should have been introduced a LOT earlier in Superman Returns. Granted, the kryptonite-island-throwing thing and kryptonite-stabbing were in and of themselves pretty hefty challenges for the Man of Steel (and please remember–he’s NEARLY indestructible, not TOTALLY indestructible, really, really, not a god), but we had to wait ENTIRELY too long to get there. And even if you want to bring the fact that he’s very superhuman into the equation, even if you CAN say he’s a god, then why wouldn’t he have sped out of there at super-speed before the guy stabbed him, and then melted the whole damn island from space with his heat vision? Wouldn’t a ‘god’ be able to do that?

Zeus would have EATEN the Kryptonite island, zapped Lutor with some green lightning bolts, crapped out the rest of it onto Parker Posey, and then hooked up with a Goddess.

One of the main, overriding problems with Superman Returns was a complete and utter lack of understanding of the character of Superman. Singer tried to shoehorn in his own sensibilities without really looking at this beloved icon. He wanted Superman his way, and, frankly, his way sucked. He took what he thought were the best elements of the Donner movies–which, let’s face it, are pretty gosh-darn overrated–and ‘updated’ them. Superman just learning about his new powers? Let’s see him almost-fall to the ground from a great height! And lose his glasses in the process! Isn’t that neat? That’s the kind of surface-level ‘understanding’ that was displayed in ‘Returns’ and even in the original Donner movies, and, to be fair, they’re the clearest and easiest ways to show that Superman was once ‘human’ like the rest of us, or was at least raised that way. So if you’re going to inject some relatability, showing it before he fully came into his powers is the only way they thought they could do it. Since Singer couldn’t do a shot-for-shot remake (much to his chagrin), he just decided to show selected ‘moments’ that might not have made it into the original movies. And that was in and of itself a wise move, because we see that, yes, Superman is one of us. But then he goes and proceeds to piss all over that idea for the rest of the movie.

And no, the only way to make this character interesting is NOT to make it a ‘character study’. I’m sorry, but that makes about as much sense as recreating the Mona Lisa with macaroni art. You could do it, sure, but what’s the point? There are PLENTY (though admittedly not as many as one would assume given a decades-long superheroing career) of Superman stories that aren’t ‘character studies’ but still prove to be engaging, moving, and fun. And that word–FUN–is something that Singer seemingly decided to leave behind. You cannot say that “Superman Returns” is a fun movie. And if you can, then you have a seriously effed up view of fun. What’s fun about a movie that’s basically about guilt, revenge, unrequited love, babies you didn’t know about and NOTHING ELSE? I’m not saying that stories with those elements in it can’t be fun, I’m just saying that “Returns” didn’t have any OTHER elements to balance those. It was slow, plodding, too serious for its own good, and did NOT make you want to fly out of the theater with a cape around your neck. It made you say: “man, that must suck to go into space to find your exploded homeworld only to find that the world has moved on without you and you’re a baby daddy, oh and that your arch-villain has conveniently decided to execute his master plan of creating real estate and killing lots of the earth JUST when you return from your travels”. And I’m sorry, no matter how you look at it, when you take a superhero, ESPECIALLY SUPERMAN, and make a movie about him, you have a goddamn obligation to make sure that people aspire to BE Superman. That little kids the world over want to run around and catch planes with their bare hands and punch out crooks and dive into lava or whatever. Superman is meant to inspire, Superman is meant to entertain. Superman is NOT there for us to feel guilty about.

Being Super is so hard ow my superman heart *mommy*blubber*

Why did Singer even bother with this storyline? What does his child add to the characters’ stories? He would have been plenty guilty that he left Earth and the woman he loved behind. The kid turning out to be his on top of it was a waste, an excuse to have a ’suprise’ towards the end of the movie, and a needless tack-on to the Superman mythos. And what kind of origin is this for the son of the greatest of all superheroes? His first superhuman act is to throw a piano at a bad guy, killing him? Really?

It’s like he’s extending the pointless non-logic that was displayed in the first Superman movies. I don’t care if you’re Superman or Hercules or Jesus Christ himself; spinning the Earth around does not reverse time. If they were going to make it a plot point that he loved her so much he would turn back time to do it, there could have been any number of mystical/sci-fi ways to make that happen that didn’t involve stupifying, insulting-to-the-intelligence-of-the-audience ideas like ’spinning the Earth around’. This is a superhero movie. Make him find a time machine or something. That’s not the point. The point is, he loves her, realizes he can’t save everyone, then goes about defying the Universe to make that happen. That’s a powerful idea. It’s the EXECUTION that you have to nail. And to date, the Superman movies have failed miserably. There’s plenty of room for pathos, genuine emotion, real wit, and engaging, original action in a Superman movie, and we haven’t even seen that ONCE.

Me? Fight? A supervillan?….      ….    Me?

I think you know your “great action” description is a bit of a stretch, so I won’t really rag on it too much, but the point is–Superman is capable of so much more. There are so many possibilities out there for an exciting, moving Superman movie and you need someone with passion, talent, and a steel-bending will to bring the ultimate Superman movie to the screen in order to do it.

I believe Millar is that man.

And yes, the Superman franchise is considered “toxic” because, quite simply, it was such a bad movie. People didn’t go to it again and again to experience the excitement of a Superman movie, they saw it once because it was Superman, then promptly went about forgetting it because it was such a slow, plodding, dark, pointless exercise in endurance. It made some money based on the fact that it was a Superman movie. But what it should have done, what everyone involved with the franchise wanted and expected, was to become one of the biggest movies ever–it should have made FISTFULS of money and re-ignited the franchise. It should have stood proudly on top of a mountain and proclaimed “SUPERMAN IS BACK!” to the adulation of BILLIONS of people around the world. Instead, it sauntered in like it was late to an Emo concert, said ‘yeah so here’s like Superman but like his life sucks and stuff, so, y’know…’, and people at first responded by walking up to it, because, y’know, it’s FUCKING SUPERMAN, then realizing that he’s kind of a whiny douche, they walked away, disappointed. “That’s not the Superman I remember”, was and is the general consensus of that movie. And that simply shouldn’t be. A “pretty nice profit” isn’t what Hollywood expects of the single most recognizable fictional character the world over this side of Mickey Mouse. So, no, the “toxic” connotation is not a stretch by any means. It’s the straight truth.

SUPERMAN. Plain and simple. Wasn’t that easy?

And since when is “Rotten Tomatoes” the litmus test of a movie’s worth? Sure, they post aggregate film review scores, but that does not guarantee a movie’s quality or success. They didn’t particularly like “Hancock”, but that’s still doing gangbusters. Hollywood and the tastes of the filmgoing public are FAR too complicated and fickle to sum up with neat little Tomato Meter percentages. There’s just too much that goes into what makes a movie successful and well-recieved to ever sum it up succinctly. But one thing can’t be argued–everyone knows who Superman is, and everyone has an idea of what Superman SHOULD be. And, unfortunately, Singer & Co.’s idea of what Superman should be massively, tragically failed to jive with what most other people expect Superman to be, without question. When you have a budget that big (even if it was only in the $100 million range), and an icon that recognizable, you should have had something that would have put Spider-Man and the Pirate movies to shame. Instead, you have a movie that put SUPERMAN HIMSELF to shame. And for that reason alone, Singer & Co. should be sent packing.

Round 1 by: Alan Noah

Not too long ago, comic writer Mark Millar said in an interview that he has plans in place to reboot the Superman film franchise. (The original article is here, and a synopsis is here.) I have a major problem with this, mainly because I absolutely loved “Superman Returns,” and see no reason why it should be scrapped or ignored. Furthermore, I don’t see the point in rebooting a movie that’s only a few years old just because someone else feels they can do a better job.

I’m not gay, but that is one handsome Super dude right there.

Before we get into the intricacies of “Superman Returns,” one needs to understand the character of Superman. He is a God. He is not just a regular guy with a desire to do good. I’m not ragging on Batman or Spider-Man or the Green Arrow or Iron Man, but at the end of the day, those guys are still human beings. Superman is an alien that is more or less indestructible. Then there is also the obvious allegory between Superman and Jesus - the son sent to Earth to save humanity, and plenty of other connections - that I’ll largely ignore for now. The point is, if you make a superhero movie about Jesus, you get this:

That obviously doesn’t work for dramatic purposes. So when making a movie about Superman, how do you create enough drama to make it interesting? Very simply, you have to make the movie a character study.

This is what “Superman: The Movie,” “Superman II,” and “Superman Returns” were all able to do so well. The original film tells a perfect origin tale and introduces what Superman stands for. In the emotional climax, he is faced with the fact that no matter how powerful he is, he will not always be able to save everyone, but because of the love that has developed between himself and Lois Lane, he is willing to break the laws of time to save her. Its sequel saw him battle three villains as powerful as he was, but again the crux of the story was his love with Lois, and what Supes was willing to sacrifice for her, and how that contradicted his destiny to be humanity’s greatest hero. It is a classic tragic love story.

No drama = Low ratings.

“Superman Returns” kept the dissection of what it means to be a Superman intact, with the Man of Steel dealing with the consequences of his leaving for five years. Humanity and Lois Lane in particular, have gotten used to living without him, or so they claim. Of course, people still do long for a hero and a savior, and even though Lois has moved on, she is still in love with Supes, and has been raising his child for the past five years. There’s one hell of a character arc. For your old fashioned villain story, you have Lex Luthor plotting the death of billions of innocent people. And there is plenty of great action, with Superman saving Lois’ plane, taking a bullet to the eyeball, and fighting off the biggest hunk of Kryptonite ever.

All in all, you have a great, compelling movie with adventure, drama, tension, and the continuing saga of one of the most complicated love stories in all of fiction.

When this guy gets a hold of that rock, you do NOT want to be from Krypton.

Now, Mark Millar says that the Superman franchise is “toxic” after SR lost so much money. I’m sorry, but by what count did it lose money? According to the-numbers.com, the movie grossed over $390 million worldwide, and cost $204 million to make. Now, I’m no math wiz, but that to me seems like a pretty nice profit. So why would Mr. Millar get the notion that SR lost money? Well you have to remember that while SR came out in 2006, it had been in development for a very long time. Remember when Nicolas Cage was going to be Superman? When Kevin Smith was writing the script? When McG was going to direct? All of those things didn’t happen, but Warner Bros. spent money on them, and that dollar total was included in the SR budget. That’s not to say that Bryan Singer didn’t spend a lot of dough on his movie, because he did. But the film still certainly made plenty of cash, and so calling it “toxic” is one hell of a stretch.

Now THAT’s toxic.

But it’s more than just the bottom line that has Mr. Millar itching to do his own Superman movie. He didn’t like SR, and he thinks he could do better. That’s an opinion he is certainly entitled to, but he should note that SR has a rating of 77% on rottentomatoes.com. That’s not too shabby. There’s room for improvement, sure, but it’s not a bad score. Now, let’s compare that to the scores of “The Hulk” and “The Incredible Hulk,” as it is the most recent example of a movie that was deemed so bad, it had to be rebooted after a few short years. 2003’s “The Hulk” got a 61% on rottentomatoes, and when the franchise got another chance five years later, “The Incredible Hulk” improved a meager 7% to 68%. “The Hulk” had its share of emphatic haters, and the reboot had high expectations, but in the end, you are left with a very simple fact: Fanboys are hard to please. There will be moments of general consensus, such as with “Batman Begins” or “Iron Man,” but more often than not, you are going to have people who hate any given movie and those who love it. Not everyone loved “Superman Returns,” but enough of us did to not merit it being cast out of canon on a whim, and I for one can’t wait for Singer, Routh, Spacey and company to return with another Superman film, and soon.

Guys like these are hard to please.

What is Geek-Fu, you ask?  Well, it’s a new feature to The Comic Collective, where two geeks will debate both sides of a matter of supreme geek importance. We will bring to bear our prodigious Geek Knowledge, and sling arrows of outrageous facts and opinions at each other in a furious contest of Geek-honed wits. Who knows more? Who makes better points? Who will win each Geek battle? Only you can decide (post your preference in the forums)!

For our very first Geek-Fu, our two resident Superman fans will debate the possibility of a Mark Millar reboot of the Superman franchise.  Starting things off will be Alan Noah, followed by Bruce Edwards.  Each geek will go two rounds, followed by a closing argument.  And those five posts will take place from Monday through Friday.  Brilliant, huh?

The winner will be decided by your comments, so don’t be shy!  After all, we’re all geeks here.  (And, in case you missed it, “geek” is a compliment.)

Let the Geek-Fu commence!

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t had the time to get into MMORPG’s. I’m pretty sure that’s what DC Universe Online is; it looks like that City of Heroes game, but with actual DC characters in it, which, apparently, you can play ALONGSIDE, but not be able to play AS. Harumph.

Watch it here!

It looks pretty cool, I don’t know. I think it has lots of potential to be fun, at least. However I think it would have been best if they showed more of what you’d ACTUALLY be doing–customizing and leveling up a superhero of your own design within the DC Universe–rather than all the ‘Look at all the heroes you won’t be able to play as’ shenanigans. I’m also not impressed by the Jim Lee mention, because I haven’t been particularly impressed with him since the heady days of the early 90’s and “X-Men 1″ with the wraparound cover.

What say you?

Y’know, I’m going to get to it one of these days soon, but it’s occurred to me that the currently-airing Spider-Man cartoon, “The Spectacular Spider-Man”, is quite possibly the best rendition of Spider-Man onscreen to date. Certainly the best cartoon, and possibly–possibly–better than the movies. It hits all the right notes, gets right to the core of what makes Spidey work, and is incredible fun. But I digress.

“Lunch Money Ray…ACTIVATE!!”

It seems they’ve gone and made an Iron Man cartoon, for some reason. It couldn’t possibly be to captitalize on the movie’s immense popularity. No. No, it must be because they want to better-explore the artistic and emotional underpinnings of this character. That HAS to be it.

Watch it here…

Now, then. I didn’t read the Orson Scott Card-written Ultimate Iron Man, and I know that he was a teenager in that, but this looks to be a faaaar cry from that. At first glance it appears that there is SOME skill involved, but c’mon, a teenage Rhodey, too? What’s the point of this? To make it more appealing to kids, right? I seem to remember a day and age where it didn’t fucking matter if every property aimed at kids had a kid character in it or not. What is it lately? Spider-Man as a kid makes sense. Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor simply cannot work as teenagers. Am I crazy? What up people?

Oh, and ARMORED ADVENTURES?!! Really?

SO, the NY Times is reporting on Robert Kirkman’s next online adventure–MTV is apparently airing webisodes of the Invincible comics!

“They animated Invincible?”, you are no doubt wondering, “Why wasn’t I notified?!!”

To which I reply: “Not exactly”. Apparently, they’ve taken the actual comics themselves and basically moved the (virtual) camera around the comics pages, adding music and sound effects, and gave voice to the characters while also showing you the text balloons.

Personally I think it’s an exciting new addition to online comics, and a half-step towards animation that really works; we’re seeing the ORIGINAL comic art, which I feel is a big coup for comics artists, and it’s in a format that might bring a whole new audience to comics in general…

Think it works? Think it sucks? SOUND OFF!