It's Just An "S"

This weekend, Ryan Reynolds will finally be bringing the long anticipated Deadpool film to theaters. Next month, Henry Cavill returns as The Man of Steel, joined by Ben Affleck as the new The Dark Knight and Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman. The 2016 wave of super-hero films is just about to begin!

In preparation, Asher Elbein posted an analysis of Superman in The Atlantic. Steven Grant shared the story on social media and sparked a lively debate.

Elbein makes some valid points about the character's struggle in the modern age.

Superman is a moral figure. It is a challenge to wrap one's head around "powers and abilities far beyond mortal men". Imagine what it must be like to try to write that. Monthly. Across four to six comic book titles. There was a time when there was no Kryptonite. There was a time when there was just Superman.

Elbein sites two standout Superman stories: Mark Waid's Superman: Birthright, and Kurt Busiek's Superman: Secret Identity. There is another that is worth noting, Paul Dini's collaboration with Alex Ross, Superman: Peace on Earth. It presents Superman's origin in a two-page spread before launching into a story about the limitations of Superman's abilities.

He can't solve famine. He can stop hatred. Superman is invulnerable to pain, but not suffering. He can only bend steel in his bare hands. He can not bend wills or change the course of mighty prejudice and bias.

Peace on Earth was the first of four oversized graphic novels that Dini and Ross worked together on. They stripped down Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Captain (Shazam!) Marvel to core essentials and told a story. There was no attempt made for it to be a defining story. Yet they were.

Here is what I liked most about Peace on Earth and the stripped down, "unplugged" Superman.

There was no Krypton.

The Silver Age was marked by "strange, new worlds and civilizations". The world of Krypton became a thing because of J'onn J'onzz, The Martian Manhunter; Green Lantern Hal Jordan was a space-cop reporting to the Guardians on Oa; Hawkman was now Katar Hol a space-cop from Thanagar; and Adam Strange was an archaeologist transported to Rann by Zeta-beam like Flash Gordon. The Silver Age was a sci-fi boom. The Superman family expanded with Kara Zor-El, Krypto, and a host of super-pets. There was even The Bottle City of Kandor. Superman traveled back through time and across space to have adventures on Krypton before it exploded.

I don't wish to demean a great, classic story. However, the story of Superman is not on Krypton. It is not about Krypton. It has nothing to do with the past or history of Krypton. For me as a fan, at least, Superman's story is here on Earth. He is a person with a dual identity and incredible super-powers helping his adopted world.

For me, Krypton doesn't matter. As an average guy on the street seeing a man flying across the sky, I probably would not know what planet he was from. I might be curious as to where his powers come from, but if we approach Superman the way Busiek approached the Marvel Universe from a photographer's perspective there is more unknown than known. More exciting mystery.

Familiarity breads contempt.

This was the trouble I had with the hesitant, indecisive Clark Kent presented on Smallville. For me, when he did not go to college, that was a huge thing. It's one thing to struggle to find a moral center. Young people face that every day. The series bogged down in a web of secrets and lies that isolated the characters and bred mistrust. That was worse than Kryptonite or magic to weaken Superman.

Elbein presents a term I really like connected to The Man of Steel. Superman is an aspirational character. We struggle with the inspiration that this "perfect" individual provides us. Our struggle is that Superman demands us to "look up in the sky". To rise to the occasion.

With Krypton part of the Superman story, there's been this whole explanation for what the "S" stands for. It's supposed to be the coat of arms or the family crest for the House of El.

The "S" is just an "S".

It's been retconned into being the family emblem. Marlon Brando wore it in 1978. Jor-El's original chest insignia was a sunburst. Krypton's red sun. Historically, Martha Kent used the blankets from the rocket to fashion the Superman costume. She fashioned the "S" for Superman. That's what the "S" stands for. That may have been another, Silver Age retcon, too.

That's basically the crux of the matter. Superman should be basic, simple and fun. It should be okay for him to wear his underwear on the outside. That, I believe, is why Marvel is succeeding where DC is struggling. DC is trying to present mature, complex, layered, nuanced, intricate characters. Marvel says, Here's Iron Man. He wears armor and fights bad guys. The best line from Avengers was Robert Downey, Jr.'s response to Chris Evans. Cap says, "We need a plan of attack!" Iron Man's response, "I have a plan: attack!" Simple. Basic.

The Superman and Justice League animated series kept it simple and basic. Live action keeps trying to complicate it.

I wish fore more stories like Peace on Earth. The problem is that after over 75 years over four or more monthly series, writers look to break new ground. That's no easy task.

There is the belief that Superman will come back around. That the whole Dark Knight approach to The Man of Steel will fade away and he will return to brightness. I hope so. I like that Superman is aspiratonal.

I want to look up in the sky.

There are dozens of movies every month where you can turn your brain off

We need more that require a little bit of thinking

Cartoons keep it simple because their target audience is children.

Marvel has also made deep content like their Netflix shows and they're argubly superior to any film they made

TLDR opinions. As long as we can all agree to disagree without degrading into the usual marvel Dc flame war it's all good

Nice blog though. Its well written

I don't know what aspects of the Superman mythology come from what age exactly, but in my opinion, Krypton, Kryptonite, Brainiac, Kandor and the Fortress of Solitude are some of the tropes I enjoy the most. See, Superman may be an aspirational character, however for me, at an even more basic level, he is a glorified everyman. And as far-out as they appear to be, I think all the elements I mentioned are things we mere mortals can identify with on some level. Krypton at once represents our sense of alienation from the world and our nostalgia for lost paradise. Kryptonite is obviously an analogue for whatever is our greatest weakness, which can sometimes be totally arbitrary. Kandor I think of as being a symbol of our vulnerability, something delicate that we try desperately to protect. And the Fortress of Solitude is just a big man-cave. For me all these core pieces of the Superman story are still basic and conceptual as long as writers don't get too preoccupied with fleshing them out or making them seem more real. Not sure if any of this makes sense.

It does.

Nice post, AirDave. I especially agree with what you said about "stripping down" the characters so that there's "more unknown than known". It seems that with many of the greatest comic heroes, writers have increasingly focused on expanding and defining the features of the fictional worlds to the extent that they forget that the world is nothing more than a medium to convey a message, they lose sight of what it's all supposed to mean. The details aren't what matter, it's the exegesis. The message of the work is what we take into our lives, not the architecture of its fictional world. The problem is that some writers perversely think of the worlds themselves as an end.

With Superman, this problem manifests as a need to "modernize" him by adding more details to the fictional world, not realizing or not caring that the problem of inter-generational transference is already taken care of by the timeless nature of the ideas that Superman embodies: the alien, the everyman who wants to do good with the powers fortune has endowed him with.

I think the problem is nowhere more evident than it is in the X-men. In the beginning, they were a group of marginalized people who nonetheless laboured to achieve a dream of unity among all peoples. But the X-men have degenerated over the decades from a coherent crew on this common ship into a disparate group of shipwrecked sailors, cast adrift in a capricious sea of allegiances and interests, and nobody seems to remember the Xavier's Dream anymore. There's great potential, I think, for a Kingdom Come-style story, not about the dark age of comics, but the neglect of the moral message of the X-men as the comics have become increasingly crowded and distracted from the central themes.

Very enjoyable blog, along with the resulting commentary. Thank you.

@fallschirmjager:

Thanks for the feedback. I genuinely want to engage in Comic Book Store conversation without being confrontational.

I'm passionate for DC characters, but incredibly anxious about DC's film projects. It's based on a wavering in the overall DC narrative.

@darkride

Maybe what DC really needs is a Marvels approach. That's what I enjoy most about the Paul Dini approach; or the Justice series...

@voloergomalus

Thank you. Thanks for all the feedback.

...EVERY thing you said in that last paragraph - and more the way you put it!

@ms-lola

You're welcome!

This. This notion that CBMs just have to be "fun" to be considered good has gotten tedious to hear. It's fine a few times, but if the superhero genre is to survive a bit more, diversity is key. It's why Deadpool will stand out in a sea of films that were family friendly. I for one am exited for the more adult tone and deeper subject matters that the DCCU seems to want to tackle.

@saintwildcard:

I feel as if I'm missing something. Deadpool looks like a fun, action movie. I don't see Deadpool as a deep, angst-filled character. Now, I enjoyed Watchmen, but apparently it was "too faithful" a film to enjoy. Too much of a good thing. Or maybe the subject was too dark and heavy. I don't want to turn this into a Marvel V. DC topic, but a lot of the Marvel films have been light-hearted. For me, Ant-Man covered a lot of heavy topics in a light-hearted way, without becoming a sitcom. Okay, I could have almost done without the wacky sidekicks, but they redeemed themselves by being part of the overall bit. Superman is not an angst-filled character, either. I want to see a great Superman movie. I keep going back to the original Donner film and Superman II for some good moments. The Man of Steel had some good ideas. I think if we looked at DC characters in a Marvels way - the way Dini and Ross have done... Maybe I just enjoy Peace on Earth so much I'd like to see that kind of story adapted. I'd like to see a Superman film where he faces Brainiac. The Man of Steel could have set up a trilogy of Krypton-based rogues... Zod could have been the final rogue. I'd like to see a JLA movie adapt the Dini-Ross Liberty and Justice story - before Darkseid.

I didn't say it was deep. I just said it stands out in a sea of family fun friendly films. Mostly cus it's hyper violent with it's own style of humor, it's meta and of course the R Rating.

I can't speak for Ant Man as I haven't seen it yet, but the interwebs and Honest Trailers called it "Iron Man with ants". And honestly, it seems like a movie that came and went without leaving a big impact (GOTG left longer impact than it I'd say). Marvel movies are funny, no ones denying that. But Ant Man had a shit villain, which has been the problem with marvel in like 80% of their films. The villain is arguably as important if not more than the hero.

I can't comment as to how I would feel of it adapting this story you seem to like, but I can say with certainty that I don't want it to have the Marvel approach and I think anyone who is against the CBM genre becoming stale and overcrowded agree. These movies have to feel different or the bubble will burst quicker. I personally love the approach DCCU is taking. And I loved MoS. It had it's flaws, but it had bigger ideas and deeper meaning than what I've seen from most Marvel movies (The Cap movies are the exception, and the Fox movies but they don't count). I like that they are looking at it through the realism lens and trying to be epic movies as opposed to just fun movies. THey tried that with Green Lantern. In the end, you are free to want these movies to be told how you want, but just as many people want them to be different (and as I've said many times before, we need the diversity) . All we can hope is that they are good.