Four Nerds

I've always been a big Superman fan. The Christopher Reeve movies were the first superhero movies for most of our generation, and in my mind, Superman I (and to some degree II) were the quintessential comic movies. To me, Richard Donner set the bar, and it's only been in the last two or three years when people have actually managed to come back to that level.

To explain, when Richard Donner made Superman, he told the story as you would any other story, like it actually happened. The characters were real and fleshed out. They didn't approach it with the carnival-ride campiness of say, the Joel Schumacher Batman flicks. They told a good story. They had plenty of action and special effects, but that wasn't the whole movie. Hell, it took half an hour before we even saw Christopher Reeve. (Incidentally, Richard Donner was fired from Superman II because the Salkinds wanted to make the movie campier. Richard Lester was brought in to replace Donner. Lester went on to direct Superman III, which did very poorly.)

When it came to Superman Returns, I wanted them to do exactly what Richard Donner did. Give us the action-packed Superman, but make a decent story. Superman 3 and 4 had plenty of action, but the stories sucked. For the most part, they did that. There are a few critics out there who have had problems with this movie. Let's look at a few of them, shall we?


1) Spectacular effects, but they don't carry a movie.

True. I have long argued that was the downfall of the Star Wars prequels. However, I personally don't see that here. I thought it was an interesting story. Supes disappears for five years, and has to reconnect with the world. Lois has moved on, has a kid, etc. Is the kid Superman's or not?

2) The story was clichéd at best.

Superman is clichéd just by being Superman. He's the quintessential superhero. How many superheroes wear capes and/or tights? How many have their emblem/ logo across their chest? Superman started all that. When we were kids, how did we pretend we were superheroes? We wrapped a towel around our necks and pretended to fly.

They were revamping the franchise. They wanted to put their own mark on it, but more importantly they wanted to remind people why they loved Superman and the original flicks. They had to pick up where Superman 2 left off, keep close ties to the first two movies, and make a good flick with a completely new cast. Sounds hard to me.

In a lot of ways, this new restart is similar to Tim Burton's Batman flicks. It's been 20 years or so since the last on-screen outing of the hero. People remember the last incarnation as being rather cheesy (think the Quest for Peace), so they went back to basics. The hero fights his archenemy, who is plotting a rather typical attack on the people of the city.

Sure they gave us the typical Superman stuff. Lex had a diabolical plan involving genocide and kryptonite. Superman throws the evil thing into space. How else would you suggest they have done it? Doomsday? Most people would walk out of the theater thinking "who the fuck is Doomsday?" How about Mr. Mxyzptlk? Two hours of Supes trying to trick someone into saying their name backwards. Brainiac would probably just remind people of Superman 3.

As for kryptonite, well, it's his only weakness. How else is Lex going to get him?

3) The story was all about Superman and Lois, their kid, and Superman's love life.

Well, duh. When you strip away the "eye candy" of the special effects, Superman is really about Lois and Superman. Hell, they had a show called "Lois and Clark" for crying out loud. As for the kid, I'm glad they finally took it to the next level. I'd be more pissed if it was more of the "I can't truly love you because I am Superman and can't risk your safety" crap. The story's always the same. Clark loves Lois. Lois loves Superman. But because she doesn't know his identity, never the two shall meet. Bullshit.

The story of Superman isn't that complicated. Hell, the original TV series was essentially Superman rescuing Lois and Jimmy from their weekly kidnapping. When I see a Batman flick, I want to see a story about a complicated, emotionally unstable superhero. There are layers to Batman. There's not a whole lot there with Superman.

4) Where's the originality?

My friend and colleague Fogelmatrix pointed out that when it comes to "the big four" comic book movies (Superman, Batman, Spider-man, and X-men), they should be better than the rest of the comic flicks out there. I couldn't agree more. I also think that of the comic book movies to come out over the last six years, X-men 1 and 2, Spider-man 1 and 2 and Batman Begins have been some of the strongest. The stories were good, they were well acted, and there was just enough "eye candy."

A lot of these directors and writers gave us stories that were very close to the comics. Why? Because they understand the fanbase. They played it close to their chest because fanboys are some of the most critical people in the world. Hell, people are still bitching because Hugh Jackman, at 6' 2", is way too tall to be Wolverine.

As for the average fans, they tend to start out with villains people have heard of. You give people a movie with some supervillain no one except a fan had ever heard of, they won't be as interested. Start out with their arch enemy and maybe they'll come back for the sequel. Don't think so? Then imagine if Tim Burton decided that the Ventriloquist was the hero to start with. It probably wouldn't have done that well.

You have to remember that of these four, the youngest title is 43 years old. There's a lot of history and a lot of stories out there. There's also a lot of high expectations. Branching too far from the source material always seems to backfire (just look at Catwoman), so how would suggest they do it?

I don't think I'm settling for inferior plots. I don't think I've lowered my standards. If I were, I would be sitting here praising the great works of Joel Schumacher and discussing the mastery of Ben Affleck's portrayal of Daredevil. Of the "Big 4" franchises of the last 6 years, I've enjoyed all the movies (except X-men 3). They were well-written, well-acted movies with compelling stories and good characterizations that remained relatively faithful to their sources.

So my question to you is, if the stories are clichéd, how would you have done it?