![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Look, up in the sky! - Superman thoughts
Jun. 19th, 2006 11:52 amI got the DVD version of this "The Amazing Story of Superman" documentary that recently aired on A&E. It's not bad, as far as it goes. I'd have preferred it to spend a bit more time on the comics. I know that Superman owes a great deal to the non-comics versions (most notably the 1940s radio series), but still he's a comic book character first and foremost.
I fear that comic books are just becoming R&D companies for movies and TV. What makes comic books aren't men in tights, but that unique combination of words and static images arranged in sequence. It's a medium that deserves respect.
Superman is the first comic book superhero - the star of one of the earliest comics. He has an important place in the history of that medium. In radio, he's an also-ran to the Shadow, the Lone Ranger and the Green Hornet. On film, as good as the first two Reeve movies are, Superman comes behind Star Wars and The Godfather as cultural touchstones of 1970s cinema. But in comics, Superman set the formula that so many others would follow.
So, any documentary should spend more time on how such an important figure affected his dominant medium.
Perhaps a more important complaint is how this documentary is completely whitewashed and corporate. Sure, being produced by Warner Bros. (distributor of the films and owner of DC Comics) gets you lots of cheap footage. But it means that important parts of the Superman story get glossed over.
For example, most histories of the character talk about how Superman's creators - Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster - were royally screwed by DC Comics/National. They received peanuts for the character, and after a legal dispute over Superboy in 1947, they had their "created by" credit removed. When the 1970s Superman film was announced Siegel wrote a bizarre letter threatening a "super-curse" on the movie's producers.
More effective was the campaign by other comics creators, notably Neal Adams (who drew those funky maudlin "Superman is a failure" late 1960s/early 1970s covers seen in the documentary). Adams and others explained that if Warners/DC didn't mend their ways, the PR for Superman the Movie would be dominated by stories about how the character's creators were living in poverty. DC relented, restored the creator byline and gave Siegel and Shuster an annual pension with medical benefits. Later under DC head honcho Paul Levitz, this pension was increased substantially.
It's an important part of Superman history, and it's very conspicuous by its absence in "Look, up in the sky!".
Also, the lawsuit by the Siegel estate to regain partial copyright to Superman was ignored. As was the recent court decision that restored the rights for Superboy to the Siegel family - retroactive to 2004 - and the rights to the Smallville TV series are in question. (http://www.newsarama.com/general/smallville.html)
I guess it's not surprising that Warner Bros. wouldn't comment on current litigation. Although in a sneaky way, they did.
When the documentary first mentions Superboy, it notes that concept of a teenage Clark Kent was first explored in the 1942 novel by George Lowther. Lowther's novel was important in the development of Superman lore. But its only mention in the documentary is to establish a pre-Superboy precedent for the Smallville TV series territory.
So, what about Superman Returns? It could go either way. Giving Lois a kid and exploring the idea of people moving on suggests the film is more than a simple action fest. Bryan Singer seems to want it to be about something. (That doesn't set well with some fanboys because superheroes are generally teenage male power fantasies. And while a teenager might dream of impressing the girl, raising a child is not the stuff of a boy's daydreams.) On the other hand, Singer's fondness for the 1978 film might keep Returns more as a homage than a film in its own right.
On the costume - I like the smaller S shield. I'm from the days of Curt Swan's art when Superman wore a blue shirt with a red and yellow S shield. I'm not as keen on the Alex Ross large-S version, where Superman appears to be wearing a red and yellow shirt with blue trim. I'm more ambivalent of the deep red. In certain lighting, it looks just too brown or burgundy. I'm reminded of the scene in Kinky Boots where the drag queen freaks out that his/her new boots aren't a vibrant red. "Please, God, don't tell me I inspired something burgundy."
Brandon Routh looks a fair bit like Christopher Reeve. I hope that wasn't the only reason for his casting. My first memory of Reeve is from back before I even knew they were filming a Superman movie. Much of the first two movies were filmed at the same time. And when they were filming the Superman II scenes at Niagara Falls, the Hamilton Spectator ran a photo of Reeve and Kidder as Clark and Lois. My mom showed me the photo and asked if I knew who they were. Without missing a beat, I replied "Clark Kent and Lois Lane." Not just some guy in glasses. Even based on a newspaper photo, Reeve was Clark Kent. It would be hard for any actor to so embody Superman as he did.
Allen
I fear that comic books are just becoming R&D companies for movies and TV. What makes comic books aren't men in tights, but that unique combination of words and static images arranged in sequence. It's a medium that deserves respect.
Superman is the first comic book superhero - the star of one of the earliest comics. He has an important place in the history of that medium. In radio, he's an also-ran to the Shadow, the Lone Ranger and the Green Hornet. On film, as good as the first two Reeve movies are, Superman comes behind Star Wars and The Godfather as cultural touchstones of 1970s cinema. But in comics, Superman set the formula that so many others would follow.
So, any documentary should spend more time on how such an important figure affected his dominant medium.
Perhaps a more important complaint is how this documentary is completely whitewashed and corporate. Sure, being produced by Warner Bros. (distributor of the films and owner of DC Comics) gets you lots of cheap footage. But it means that important parts of the Superman story get glossed over.
For example, most histories of the character talk about how Superman's creators - Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster - were royally screwed by DC Comics/National. They received peanuts for the character, and after a legal dispute over Superboy in 1947, they had their "created by" credit removed. When the 1970s Superman film was announced Siegel wrote a bizarre letter threatening a "super-curse" on the movie's producers.
More effective was the campaign by other comics creators, notably Neal Adams (who drew those funky maudlin "Superman is a failure" late 1960s/early 1970s covers seen in the documentary). Adams and others explained that if Warners/DC didn't mend their ways, the PR for Superman the Movie would be dominated by stories about how the character's creators were living in poverty. DC relented, restored the creator byline and gave Siegel and Shuster an annual pension with medical benefits. Later under DC head honcho Paul Levitz, this pension was increased substantially.
It's an important part of Superman history, and it's very conspicuous by its absence in "Look, up in the sky!".
Also, the lawsuit by the Siegel estate to regain partial copyright to Superman was ignored. As was the recent court decision that restored the rights for Superboy to the Siegel family - retroactive to 2004 - and the rights to the Smallville TV series are in question. (http://www.newsarama.com/general/smallville.html)
I guess it's not surprising that Warner Bros. wouldn't comment on current litigation. Although in a sneaky way, they did.
When the documentary first mentions Superboy, it notes that concept of a teenage Clark Kent was first explored in the 1942 novel by George Lowther. Lowther's novel was important in the development of Superman lore. But its only mention in the documentary is to establish a pre-Superboy precedent for the Smallville TV series territory.
So, what about Superman Returns? It could go either way. Giving Lois a kid and exploring the idea of people moving on suggests the film is more than a simple action fest. Bryan Singer seems to want it to be about something. (That doesn't set well with some fanboys because superheroes are generally teenage male power fantasies. And while a teenager might dream of impressing the girl, raising a child is not the stuff of a boy's daydreams.) On the other hand, Singer's fondness for the 1978 film might keep Returns more as a homage than a film in its own right.
On the costume - I like the smaller S shield. I'm from the days of Curt Swan's art when Superman wore a blue shirt with a red and yellow S shield. I'm not as keen on the Alex Ross large-S version, where Superman appears to be wearing a red and yellow shirt with blue trim. I'm more ambivalent of the deep red. In certain lighting, it looks just too brown or burgundy. I'm reminded of the scene in Kinky Boots where the drag queen freaks out that his/her new boots aren't a vibrant red. "Please, God, don't tell me I inspired something burgundy."
Brandon Routh looks a fair bit like Christopher Reeve. I hope that wasn't the only reason for his casting. My first memory of Reeve is from back before I even knew they were filming a Superman movie. Much of the first two movies were filmed at the same time. And when they were filming the Superman II scenes at Niagara Falls, the Hamilton Spectator ran a photo of Reeve and Kidder as Clark and Lois. My mom showed me the photo and asked if I knew who they were. Without missing a beat, I replied "Clark Kent and Lois Lane." Not just some guy in glasses. Even based on a newspaper photo, Reeve was Clark Kent. It would be hard for any actor to so embody Superman as he did.
Allen
