Perhaps it is because a new Superman film, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, is due out in less than two months. Whatever it is, it seems as though it is again the season for the “What’s Wrong With Superman?” think pieces to start popping up. My personal opinion is that most critics of the Man of Steel just don’t get that the things that are “uncool” about Superman are exactly the things that have made him special and enduring.
Superman is inherently good. His planet exploded, killing almost his entire family, yet he still wants to help people. With that power, he could do horrible things, but you know what? He doesn’t. Because he’s Superman.
If Superman is a failed character, he would not have endured for over 75 years in the comic books. There wouldn’t have been multiple movies and TV series devoted to the character, including one TV show that lasted for 10 years. When Christopher Reeve was paralyzed and later passed away, we were all crushed. Why? Because for a lot of us, he was our hero brought to life.
No, Superman is not Batman. He doesn’t get a fancy car, but he can fly faster than a fancy car, anyway. We already have a Batman, and that’s great. I’m a fan of Batman, because one can like both the Dark Knight Detective and the Man of Steel.
Superman rescues cats from trees. He’ll brag that his mother made his costume for him. He probably would hear the screams of millions in every second, and yet he still gets through the day. So he wears his underpants on the outside sometimes. You would, too, if it made your costume look cooler.
In addition to being the ultimate immigration story on an interplanetary scale, we must also recall that, because he was raised by some of us (humans), a lot of who he is is because of his fantastic supporting cast. The guidance of the Kents, the love of Lois, the friendship of Jimmy Olsen and Perry White… those things mold him into one of us.
Sometimes, people point to box office returns as “proof” of Superman’s failure. Man of Steel made money. I’m pretty sure Superman Returns made money. So what if they didn’t make as much money as The Dark Knight did. Thousands if not millions of movies haven’t performed like The Dark Knight did. According to Box Office Mojo, Man of Steel made more money than both Captain America films, both Thor movies, The Amazing Spider-Man, 1989’s Batman, and every X-Men movie. Some failure. And all of those people wearing “S” t-shirts, maybe even getting the symbol as a tattoo? Why would they do that if Superman is a loser?
In short? Superman doesn’t need fixing. He’s been just right for 78 years, underpants on the outside and all. I’ve been a fan of the character since Superfriends, and I have never had a problem with what he is meant to represent.
View Comments
The Superman character is just fine. It's just sad that such terrible movies are being made with that character.
You're my hero, Craig. Very well said!
Bandwagon jumpers don't know what's good for them. There are tons of great superman stories to read for anyone who look, and loads of good TV and films as well.
Is you ask me Superman has never been broken, and he doesn't need fixing.
I agree with everything except for the underpants. The best thing they did with Superman is lose those things. Also, a little fun fact, Superman's symbol is one of the most recognized symbol in the world; second only to the cross. But I think the best way to understand and admire Superman, is from a speech from Superman himself:
"That man won't quit as long as he can still draw a breath. None of my teammates will. Me? I've got a different problem. I feel like I live in a world made of cardboard, always taking constant care not to break something, to break someone. Never allowing myself to lose control even for a moment, or someone could die. But you can take it, can't you, big man? What we have here is a rare opportunity for me to cut loose and show you just how powerful I really am."
— Superman, Justice League Unlimited.
You skip a couple of very important aspects of the movie going business when referencing Box Office Mojo.
Many of the films you list actually would not see a single penny in profit based off of the numbers you reference which are only US box office numbers. You don't mention the fact that when you use World Wide numbers there are a few of the film that you mention that out gross Man of Steel, and many more that outgross Superman Returns.
You also don't take into account the reported budget (which doesn't include prints or marketing), of which both Superman films are on the very high end for cost of the actual production. We most always remember that studios only earn a percentage of the actual ticket price. that is what prevented Superman Returns from seeing profit off of its theatrical release. It required its home market and tv broadcasts, to put it into the green. Now Man of Steel did earn a profit off of its theatrical releases (again that means World Wide release).while Superman Returns eventually made a profit, it didn't make a lot, in relationship to the amount of capital they spent. And studios also know how much the average sequel earn in relationship to the original (though there are of course many exceptions, including a good number of the superhero films of the last 10 years). Sequels generally generate 80% of the original in ticket sales. That was the single reason that the studio was not willing to spend money on a sequel to Superman Returns. Now Man of Steel didn't have that issue, for two reasons. 1 it's WW sales were sufficient to warrant a sequel. And 2, WB really, really wants to create a shared film universe like Marvel has done to create a ongoing franchise of blockbuster films. They probably would have done it, even if Man of Steel only did the business Superman Returns did..
^^ All of that is pretty irrelevant, as I was writing from a U.S. perspective.
And Box Office Mojo may not provide a clear-cut estimate of a film's true production budget. As an example, BOM lists Superman Returns' budget at $270 million, yet there have been other sources, including interviews with director Bryan Singer, which put the budget at far less than that - somewhere around $204-220 million.