Christ Centered Gamer

Maybe you can help me out. What's the appeal of Superman?

Why Superman is AWESOME.

1) Superman's powers are effectively without limit, but they're just an accessory. That means that a good Superman story needs to be thoughtful, intelligent, and have more interesting themes than simply setting up a boss fight. (That's why there are lots of bad Superman stories out there too... The writers don't always get this one right.) Superman's arch nemesis is Lex Luthor, a man who has no superpowers of any kind and yet he's a threat to Superman. Why? Intelligence. And when Superman defeats him, it's a battle of wits. The powers become nothing but a plot device. It isn't enough for Superman to be able to snatch bullets out of the air or fly into space. He's got to be smarter than Luthor to defeat him.

2) Superman isn't driven by a silly 1 dimensional motive like a desire for vengeance or to cope with a difficult childhood. Superman is a character who struggles to maintain an ideal in a culture that is increasingly pessimistic and jaded. He does what he does because it's right and not for pseudo-complex character motivations. Superman is one of the few superheroes out there whose core sense of self is the desire to do right for it's own sake. (This is why I love Captain America too.) That actually inspires me, in my own life, to be a better man. Christopher Reeve did a fantastic job in emphasizing this part of Superman's character.

3) Superman's greatest enemy is not Luthor, Zod, Brainiac or Bizarro. It's his own self. He's got to maintain a very high morality because he HAS to in spite of any temptation to use his powers to take control. He's got such extremely potent powers and abilities that the slightest crack in his moral code can lead to despotism. Superman could take over the world on a whim if he chose to. That he doesn't is a sign of his absolute moral strength. (This is one of the reasons Superman IV was such a horrible travesty. In that movie, Superman unilaterally decides to disarm the world's nukes. It was utterly against the nature of Superman because he MUST NOT INTERFERE.) If you're into graphic novels, read Red Son sometime. It explores this theme in depth. Superman isn't a Paladin because he's a boyscout. He's a Paladin because to be anything else would inexorably lead to utter corruption.

"It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him."
-Batman

4) Superman is inspirational. When you're watching a Superman movie and things have gone wrong, and the airplane is gonna crash or the nuke's gonna go off or whatever, and you see that streak of blue and red come into frame, you know everything's going to be okay now, because Superman is here. No other superhero quite does that, at least not for me. Other superhero movies do superhero things and save the day, but there's always tension. Superman dispels that tension, not so much because of his powers, but because of who he is. And I know some people like the tension to last longer because it makes the story more thrilling, but to me that's kind of a cheap story device. Honestly, it's not like you go into *any* superhero movie and honestly wonder whether the hero's gonna prevail. Of course he is. Superman movies embrace that instead of pretending he's not. That frees up a good writer to explore much more interesting themes.

5) Just yesterday, after I left for work, my daughter went up to my wife and said "Daddy went to work to put on his Superman clothes."

OMG That's absolutely the highest praise a father can possibly receive from a 5 year old daughter. She thinks I'm Superman. Pardon me, I've got something in my eye...

(Ok so #5 is personal just for me... But screw it I'm on a roll here.)

There are lots of cool superhero characters out there but it's rare that they get to that level of depth. They occasionally do, and it's great, but Superman has the edge on all of them when he's done justice by writers.

Which makes me think of Superman III. That was almost a good Superman movie. In the part where Superman becomes evil, as a result of being exposed to the synthetic Kryptonite, it just shows Superman being a jerk for a few days. How much more interesting would that have been if, instead, it showed Superman do away with his moral code and start to exercise his powers "for the good of Humanity" and take over? You can't really tell a story quite like that with any other superhero. Powerful as Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, Batman, etc are, they're not really in a position to become despotic and so they don't need to hold to the Paladin mentality the way Superman must.

THAT is the appeal.

1) This doesn't make such sense for me. Luthor has to use his mind, but Superman doesn't. While I'll admit my Superman lore is a bit paltry, I don't recall him ever having to truly out-think his opponent. I did see him, however, turn back time. On this point, I find Lex Luthor far more interesting. He certainly was the most interesting character in Smallville.

2) This actually comes off as really one dimensional to me. It's almost like answering the question "why" with "because." Why does he stand up for what's right. Because. Why is he motivated to do what he does? Because it's right. Why? Because. In the end, I suppose it's supposed to be the triumph of good, traditional American values, courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Kent. Anyhow, that being said...

3) This I do find as a fascination point. I haven't seen anything touch on it, but I like this point a lot. When you are so overwhelming powerful, what stops you from taking over? What stops you from recreating the world in the image you see fit? What even makes you connected with the people? Why even care?
How do you feel this foils with Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen?

4) Perhaps, but it seems like this really pulls from the suspense of a story. Like you said, when he shows up, you know everything's going to be okay. No conflict, no self-analysis, no growth. It's not a cheap ploy at all. Conflict is at the center to the development of a story. He becomes more like a deity than a character.

5) I'm glad your daughter thinks that.

So yeah, you piqued my interest with your third point.

ArchAngel wrote:1) This doesn't make such sense for me. Luthor has to use his mind, but Superman doesn't. While I'll admit my Superman lore is a bit paltry, I don't recall him ever having to truly out-think his opponent. I did see him, however, turn back time. On this point, I find Lex Luthor far more interesting. He certainly was the most interesting character in Smallville.

I'd argue that Superman doesn't beat Luthor because of his powers, but rather because of his own sense of honor and his intellect. 2 easily accessible examples:

In Superman: The Movie (1978) Superman is close to drowning in the pool with a lump of kryptonite around his neck. Miss Tessmacher saves him because he promises to stop the missile threatening her mom's hometown first and she knows if he promises, he will absolutely keep his word. His code of honor is what allowed her to take the leap of faith and save him, thus allowing him to go on to save the world

In Superman II he simply out-thinks Luthor and manipulated him into tricking the Kryptonian criminals into letting him take away their powers. (In this case, his powers were useless, he had to out-think all 4 of them.) The point being, Superman's power level is actually utterly arbitrary. (At least, in the really good Superman stories, which I admit aren't all of them.)

ArchAngel wrote: 2) This actually comes off as really one dimensional to me. It's almost like answering the question "why" with "because." Why does he stand up for what's right. Because. Why is he motivated to do what he does? Because it's right. Why? Because. In the end, I suppose it's supposed to be the triumph of good, traditional American values, courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Kent. Anyhow, that being said...

Ah but see this is what makes Superman special. Nobody else stands for that kind of idealism (Which is a necessity, but he didn't have to be presented that way.) Batman does what he does because of childhood trauma and inner demons. Spider-Man does what he does out of goodness but he doesn't really stand for any particular ideal. The same goes for the majority of superheroes (Again, Captain America being a notable exception.) Look at another popular superhero, Wolverine. Loner, tortured past, angsty, not really a good guy beyond being connected to the X-Men.

ArchAngel wrote: 3) This I do find as a fascination point. I haven't seen anything touch on it, but I like this point a lot. When you are so overwhelming powerful, what stops you from taking over? What stops you from recreating the world in the image you see fit? What even makes you connected with the people? Why even care?
How do you feel this foils with Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen?

This, for me, is the best part so it's cool we kinda get together on this. You can really tell some morally conflicting stories with this, and it can be a metaphor for any kind of great power, like military, political, financial, cult of personality, etc.

Dr. Manhattan is interesting because he too has a vast arsenal of powers and yet his approach is very different (going by what I know, which is limited to the movie) it seems like his moral conflicts are resolved by simply adhering to no particular morality at all. It's as if he's grown beyond mortal conventions and just doesn't care one way or the other. It's an interesting alternate approach to the question of how one can have absolute power and yet not be corrupted absolutely. Superman has superhuman morality to go with his powers, Dr. Manhattan simply exists on a separate plane of consciousness.

ArchAngel wrote: 4) Perhaps, but it seems like this really pulls from the suspense of a story. Like you said, when he shows up, you know everything's going to be okay. No conflict, no self-analysis, no growth. It's not a cheap ploy at all. Conflict is at the center to the development of a story. He becomes more like a deity than a character.

I can see what you mean, but to me what it does is that if frees up the story to be about more than just a boss fight between the hero and the plot device. Does it matter that we know for a fact that Superman WILL save the day? Of course not. If it were a Batman movie would you be in any doubt he'd prevail? The superhero ALWAYS prevails. The problem with other superhero movies (and this is also true of Superman movies, in fairness) is that they try to create the illusion that it might actually go the other way. We, the viewing audience, know better. So why push so hard to create that illusionary question mark? A good Superman movie doesn't ask "Will Superman defeat Luthor?" But rather "How will Superman resolve this moral conflict?"

ArcticFox wrote:Batman does what he does because of childhood trauma and inner demons. Spider-Man does what he does out of goodness but he doesn't really stand for any particular ideal. The same goes for the majority of superheroes (Again, Captain America being a notable exception.) Look at another popular superhero, Wolverine. Loner, tortured past, angsty, not really a good guy beyond being connected to the X-Men.

Those are oversimplications and you know it.
Spiderman, as I know it, actually comes in as the most inspirational of superheros, becoming a role model for many fatherless boys who saw a scrawny, dorky kid use whatever powers he has to do good and help people. That they can be more than what people see in them and they should use it for good.
Batman is more than just a bout with childhood trauma, and the Nolan trilogy touches on many different themes. Wolverine's tortured loneliness is a part of the tale for him to find not only himself but where he stands in relation to others but also what he stands for. It is, or should be, dynamic.

ArcticFox wrote:I can see what you mean, but to me what it does is that if frees up the story to be about more than just a boss fight between the hero and the plot device. Does it matter that we know for a fact that Superman WILL save the day? Of course not. If it were a Batman movie would you be in any doubt he'd prevail? The superhero ALWAYS prevails. The problem with other superhero movies (and this is also true of Superman movies, in fairness) is that they try to create the illusion that it might actually go the other way. We, the viewing audience, know better. So why push so hard to create that illusionary question mark? A good Superman movie doesn't ask "Will Superman defeat Luthor?" But rather "How will Superman resolve this moral conflict?"

Well, usually, we want to see how this conflict impacts the characters. Ultimately, you described a failing in action movies.

Anyhow, I think I'm getting carried away with my critique. I came to ask you what the appeal was, and I don't mean to tear apart Superman. And you brought me what you found was the appeal. The ultimate superhero who stands for an unfailing sense of truth, justice, and the american way. Well, truth and justice nowadays. Clearly, this Superman resonates deeply with you, as well as many others since it's inception. It wouldn't be so recognizable otherwise. In a sense, perhaps, the appeal of superman is the epitome of the appeal of superheroes altogether.

ArchAngel wrote:In a sense, perhaps, the appeal of superman is the epitome of the appeal of superheroes altogether.

Well said... I think I can definitely agree with you on that.

Less than 2 hours 'till showtime! I'm geeking fiercely right now.

Enjoy! I hope this one rocks.

Just saw it today. Not the biggest superman fan (he's slowly growing on me). But this version is by far my favorite. He's intelligent and knows when to lay the punches when need be. Also, seeing his transition to Superman help me relate to him more than past versions of the character.

Also, the blend of realism and fantasy was done well. I thought it was a great movie as I look forward to the new DC Cinematic Universe.

All that stuff I said about Superman needing that code of ethics to keep from descending into despotism was rendered in this movie beautifully, as it shows him actually going through the struggle of choosing his path, and the influences from BOTH of his fathers that set him upon it.

I LOVED IT. Will write more later.

ArchAngel wrote: Spiderman, as I know it, actually comes in as the most inspirational of superheros, becoming a role model for many fatherless boys who saw a scrawny, dorky kid use whatever powers he has to do good and help people. That they can be more than what people see in them and they should use it for good.

Yeah, don't forget "with great power, comes great responsibility", which, based on what ArcticFox has been saying, could also be Superman's motto.

I just saw it and I think it was a good film.

I'm having a hard time dealing with the fact that Man of Steel has gotten so low in the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I could see not giving it anything above a B- (I give it a 9/10, but that's just me), but I thought most would agree that it was certainly better than Superman Returns (which has a 75% and wasn't a bad film, just didn't do much for the Superman series). Its like giving the movie an F.

People are free to their opinions, but this general trend is what's bugging me.

Maybe they were expecting something more Nolan-esque? After this and the Hobbit, my confidence in RT is fading.

LAVA89 wrote:I'm having a hard time dealing with the fact that Man of Steel has gotten so low in the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I could see not giving it anything above a B- (I give it a 9/10, but that's just me), but I thought most would agree that it was certainly better than Superman Returns (which has a 75% and wasn't a bad film, just didn't do much for the Superman series). Its like giving the movie an F.

People are free to their opinions, but this general trend is what's bugging me.

Maybe they were expecting something more Nolan-esque? After this and the Hobbit, my confidence in RT is fading.

Worst part is, that may discourage WB from doing any Justice League stuff.

My one criticism of the movie is that Zack Snyder really needs to think about using a steady cam.

I agree with the shaky cam...though the cinematography of the fights were better than some of the Nolan Batman stuff (especially the fight scenes in Begins).

About the critics, it might sway them. But critics don't make them money (aside from the cherry picked quotes they always paste on the commercials). And if the Michael Bay Transformers movies has taught us anything. Its that the audiences paychecks and critics can be on two totally different wave lengths.

So if it MoS makes them money (and judging by how packed the theater was on opening day at 10:45 AM I think it will), there will be more DC stuff to come. Its pure, unadulterated economics.

http://screencrush.com/man-of-steel-chr ... gnet_70136

Pardon me... I have something in my eye again... :')