Well, with Spider-Man and the X-Men getting another shot we all knew it was only a matter of time before it came around the corner again and so it has. Superman. Yes, the Man of Steel is finally getting his day of amnesty on the silver screen. As a result, someone asked me what I thought of the casting choice for Big Blue (Henry Cavil). Truth be told, I don't really care. He's all dreamy, eloquent of voice and sh**....he'll be fine. Besides, the problem with the past few outings hasn't been the guy in the cape. It's been everything else. There are a few things this new film is going to need to get by:
1). It cannot include James Marsden. I am so f**kin serious here. The thing that Ratner/Singer didn't understand about comic book films is that it's a slippery slope using the same people to play different roles...especially when the different roles are so similar: the other guy the love interest chose but doesn't really like. Watch the Notebook and the X Men films then tell me there's not some similarity. Anyway, it wasn't necessarily Marsden himself that had a negative hand in Superman Returns. It was his character. Put simply, he was an attempt at being Ward Cleaver meets Tintin and although he was a ridiculously self assured rebound guy in the shadow of man who blocks bullets with his f**kin eyeball, it just wasn't necessary.
2). You have to give us a slugfest. Now, commonly, I am a card carrying member of the "big fights don't make a superhero film good" club, but in this case, an exception must be made. It is my feeling that a superhero is only as awesome, as courageous, as bold as the tests put before him. The Dark Knight reminded us how awesome Batman is by putting him up against a clown faced anarchist who shot, stabbed, blew up, mutilated, conned and stole from everything he came into contact with. Iron Man 2 pitted Tony Stark against a guy who broke the time honored rules of superpowered combat and decided to take his shot at the hero before he even had time to properly put up his tin plated dukes the race car scene. In "Returns", we get Superman versus Lex Luthor and the Kryptonite mountain. Don't get me wrong...I know where Singer was going with it, giving the hero a cataclysmic event that forces him to be everywhere at once. After all, the comics didn't always have superpowered baddies. He averted disasters that mortal men couldn't prevent themselves. However, the comics did evolve over time and as much as it pains me to say it, there is a substantial percentage of the audience that, in the wake of so many popular films that depict physical manifestations of conflict (Blade, Spider Man, Incredible Hulk, etc.), responds to the lowest common denominator. In this case, that mean two people beating the sh** out of each other. Honestly, I don't care if they keep Luthor in the movie. Even in the worse case scenario, he's a psychologically powerful dissenting voice to Kal-El's unwavering moral fiber and that's necessary if you want a realistic balance when representing his standing among mankind. Personally, I'd go the Kevin Smith route and throw Brainiac in the mix. After all, he's a threat on many levels given our addiction to technology and his (in the popular incarnations) knowledge of Superman's homeworld.
3). Stop trying to invoke the feelings everyone associates with The Death of Superman. Ideally, the prospect of comic culture's most notoriously invulnerable man flatlining should be a chilling one. Unfortunately, we've seen it so much at this point (The Death of Superman, Superman: Doomsday, the Hereafter episode of Justice League, Kevin Smith's Superman Lives script, Superman Returns), it's almost become an insult to the audience's intelligence. Furthermore, if it has to be done, at least let it be done with some dignity and gravitas. "Returns" saw him die for about 7 minutes. He woke up, flew out the door, dealt with his baby mama drama and flew off into the sunset.
4). Cut it out with the Jesus references. Besides, the fact that it's gotten old and unenlightened, it's wrong. I understand that for writers, it's a seemingly simple thing to write. I get it. I, myself, used to think this way about it. I mean, it's hard for my generation to avoid when you hear Marlon Brando's voice in your head..."They could be a great people, Kal-El. They wish to be. They merely lack light to show them the way. It is for this reason -their capacity for good- that I have given them you...my only son." Still, the last son of Krypton isn't really a messianic figure so much as an aspirational one. As fellow blogger Mightygodking points out, Jesus' moral vision is imposed dictation from the Almighty. Therefore, what he says goes. Such is not the case with Superman. His moral vision is not a divine message to humanity. It comes FROM humanity, specifically Jonathan and Martha Kent, who are unequivocally good people. People don't get Superman tattoos on their arm because they see him as a savior. It's because he's something to aspire toward: the pinnacle of human virtue. Then again, I could be wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment