Dammit, I'm talking about Superman again: All Star Superman

Last week, I made a great decision - I read All Star Superman by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely. This was my second ever experience of a Morrison/Quitely adventure after WE3, and just like WE3, I was left incredibly satisfied and in deep thought about what I had just read.

Warning: There will be All Star Superman spoilers here.

I'm pretty late to this book - about 6 or so years late in fact - but I can say that this is the definitive Superman for me. Every time I've thought about, discussed, and drawn Superman, this is the version I have imagined. In his own league of strength and power, but most importantly, hopeful.

He isn't just an indestructible alien from an extinct species and planet. He's an well-meant farm boy from Kansas who wants to do the right thing.
This is when Superman works best - when his powers are an extension of his character. Superman here is just doing everything he can for humanity before he dies, and this takes him on fantastic adventures that are throwbacks to the Golden Age of comics. A lot of those old old stories have a sense of a writer panicking about deadlines and creative blocks, and writing a weird and surreal story out of that, and Morrison seems to have taken those old DC comics and utilised their charm to create this 12 part miniseries.

Maybe Man Of Steel was right...

I've heard people complain about All Star, as if they're confused by it. Some fans don't seem to understand that this isn't a straightforward story that clicks into place alongside Superman canon - it's an exploration of Superman. A one-off.
That's all All Star is, a one-off series of Superman adventures featuring his friends and enemies, all tied together by Superman's inevitable demise. It's one-offness allows it to explore what makes Superman special, without having to think worry about future Superman stories as a consequence of this one. He time-travels and even creates a fucking universe, of which that universe's Siegel and Shuster create Superman. He is a symbolic character more than he is a standard superhero: he is Hope.
What does humanity do when Superman isn't around? The answer is create their own Superman.Their own hope. At the very end, when Superman 'dies' to fix/become part of the sun, Earth creates their own Superman, just as the alternate universe creates him as a fictional comic book character. It's an optimistic ending that doesn't get bogged down in the "but why? How?" aspect that a lot of fans seem to really crave.

There's a great video of Grant Morrison addressing a question that I can't find anywhere online, but what happens is someone asks him how old Batman is. His answer is basically: 'it doesn't matter'. Batman is a fictional character and trying to give a more realistic identity to their physical well-being ruins what makes them great. Unless in a story like The Dark Knight Returns, age is not as important to Batman, as, say, how Batman is used to explore themes of justice, fear, class and power balance. Same with other characters. Saying that Superman's only cool because he fights and is ultra powerful, also invites the way of thinking that Superman is a boring character because he's too powerful and his villains suck. He's a children's character, not a fucking Top Trumps card. It's like how adults keep asking why nobody recognises Superman behind Clark Kent's glasses, get told it doesn't matter because he's not real - and then being unsatisfied with that answer!


That's why I think that, because his powers are an extension of his goodwill, Superman can't really work as part of a cinematic universe. He doesn't work as well when he's boiled down to his stats and pitted against others. I've always kind of thought that Superman would work well in a standalone, motion capture film, like the Tintin movie:

The action. The colours. The semi-realism. Is there not potential here for an All Star Superman film - in a Fleischer cartoon-inspired style? This is the kind of filmmaking that is perfect for standalone stories. From a completely aesthetic point of view, it's realistic enough that this world could exist, yet fantastical enough that the story can remain faithful to the more psychadelic sci-fi aspects of Morrison and Quitely's work. You could tell a contemporary superhero story, while keeping a golden age feel - after all, that's what the Incredibles did. I think it could work. 

Or maybe we can remove all fantasy completely and treat Superman as realistic and charmless as possible and pass it off as 'intelligent'.

*Cough*

DRUNK: A review of Superman in Man Of Steel.

I'm 100% open to watching someone take a franchise and make something that deviates from it's original tone, as long as it stays true to the character. I wasn't too keen on how Superman was portrayed in this film, but I get it. It's a post-9/11, ends-justify-the-means, superhero action film. It's almost overly dark because it's trying not to be an MCU-type film. 


Problem was, it totally is an MCU-type film.

From all that happened in the last fight and Metropolis watching Superman and Zod make it rain Hell upon the city, it just felt like they undid that drama in the last 5 minutes to make sure that Superman can return for a sequel and can potentially spawn a universe - a DCCU. The other problem is, whilst trying to make the film darker and broodier, Zack Snyder just isn't as experienced of a director to make that charming. The whole film feels too cold and I found it hard to connect with these characters as they were not as fun to watch as the Donner version. Sure, there are decades of film making and VFX progression between them, but in the end, the Superman/Clark Kent that Reeves creates is much more fun to watch than a Superman that has to 'find his way'. 

Take for instance, the scene from the Donner version where Clark bumbles his and Lois' way into an alley with a crook. This is ultimately s character-driven scene using superpowers to create the rules of Superman's character, as it explores how Clark and Lois react to the situation and each other Lois is always doing what she believes is the right thing, even if she gets shot at as a result. As for Clark - we all know that Superman is always Superman, even when he's Clark. This means he purposely makes Clark a bumbling fool - because Superman's physical nature means he  is always in control of every situation. Why? Because he's a fictional character in a fictional world! It doesn't matter if Clark 'accidentally' allows a crook to rob them at gunpoint, because Superman won't let him get away.

 It doesn't matter if the crook shoots a bullet towards Lois, Superman's presence means  Lois is never in any danger in the first place. Superman, as a character, is a confidence and a comfort that lies before, within and beyond a dark situation, free from politics and ego, he's a hero that exists whether you know he's there or not, and he doesn't look down on ungratefulness. 

Of course, franchises stay relevant by being changed, and it's safe to say that most 'Hero Vs. Villain' franchises changed after 9/11. I wrote my dissertation (or thesis) on that subject. But Superman having to destroy half a city to stop a villain is not a 'Superman' thing, that's a 'human' thing. And that makes the Man Of Steel Superman no better than the rest of us, which is a sad thought.

But at the end of the day, it's just a movie...