The cover of People Magazine for January 1979 gave the world the now iconic photograph of Superman as played by Christopher Reeve. For the general public, this was perhaps the first time they believed that a man could fly and this image will live on in their memories and in all our memories as the one and only Superman for generations.
This month's cover of Entertainment Weekly attempts to paint, for the current generation, the portrait of Reeve's heir apparent, Henry Cavill as the Man of Steel. I am posting both covers side-by-side in an effort to illustrate the passing of the torch. Reeve first appeared on the big screen as Superman in 1978 when he was 26 years old. Sadly, he passed away on October 10, 2004 at the age of 52. For many people, Christopher Reeve was their Last Son of Krypton, and for them, that was the day their Superman died.
Cavill, who turns 30 next month, picks up the mantle and the cape that Reeve in death had allowed to fall to the ground. Can Henry Cavill fill the red boots and wear the red and yellow shield in honor of the Superman who came before him? Can he inspire this generation and those who come after as the Superman of the 21st century? Will his image on the cover of Entertainment Weekly replace that of Reeve's, and will be he the hero we need to inspire us as we rush headlong into the future?
Superman: Man of Steel premieres in the United States on June 14, 2013. That's when we'll get our answers.
Message to Christopher Nolan and anyone associated with casting an actor to play Clark Kent/Superman in the Superman: Man of Steel film reboot: Clark Kent is NOT pretty! Do not cast a model in this role. Superman looks strong and tough and even when he's dressed as Clark, he doesn't look like a 12 year old choir boy.
Do the people who make these films even read the comic books...I mean the modern ones? For cryin' out loud! Clark does not look like a caricature or a goofball. Just take a look at some of the images I'm posting from the Superman comic books and see what I mean. He looks totally tough. Compare that to the two principle actors who have played Superman on the big screen over the past 30 years. Don't get me wrong, I really like and respect Christopher Reeve's portrayal of Superman, but, especially in the original Superman (1978) film, Clark was dressed idiotically and acted worse (of course, I thought the portrayal of Lois was totally mishandled as well, but that's a separate issue). If the idea is for Clark not to draw any possible connection between himself and Superman, he'd act like a regular guy and would excel as a reporter. He wouldn't be stumbling all over himself, at least any more than anyone else around him would. Compare how Clark is portrayed by Reeve and Routh and then revisit the images of Clark from the comics. What an incredible difference. Don't tell me you can't find an actor who can pull this off. Christopher Bale convincingly channels both Bruce Wayne and Batman (though probably the only actor who really ever has), so you can find someone who can handle the role of Clark and Superman and still not look like a character from a 1960s cartoon. The time to "camp up" Superman is long past. If you can create a serious Batman film, you can do the same with Superman. Do not screw this up!
If you can't handle something as simple as this, all the special effects in the CGI/3D world won't be able to save your reputation with Superman fans.
I read a poll recently (which I can no longer find) that asked you to vote for your favorite Superman actor. Christopher Reeve was the runaway favorite, as you might expect. Despite (or maybe because of) Brandon Routh's portrayal of the Man of Steel in the 2006 film Superman Returns, Reeve's series of films as the Last Son of Krypton, starting with Superman (1978) have set the cinematic standard for how the man in the big, red cape is supposed to be done.
On the other hand, Tom Welling's Clark Kent on the popular CW TV series Smallville is extremely compelling as evidenced by the fact that the show is on the cusp of its 10th season. Welling's Clark (and not yet Superman) is a very different portrayal in a very different universe, despite the fact that it's based on the same basic canon as Reeve's Superman, complete with the "crystal palace" Fortress at the North Pole (and if the polar icecaps melt due to global warming, will it sink?). For most people born in 1970 and beyond, Reeve is the costumed Superman and Welling is the heir apparent still waiting to don the cape (and really, really needing to learn how to fly). Yet, if you've seen or taken any of the "Who is your favorite Superman" polls, you know that there have been many more versions of Kal-El, both on the big and small screens.
Fear not. I'm not going to go through an exhaustive inventory of Superman: Serial to Cereal, but rather, I want to compare, at least in general, the comic book version of Superman vs. the live action version. They aren't as close as you might imagine. Should they be closer?
If or when Superman ever appears in the cape on the silver screen again (probably in 3D since the techology is blossoming), it should be a reboot. Frankly (and in my own humble opinion), the canon on which both the Reeve and Welling Supermen are built is over 30 years old and needs some serious reconsideration. The reason the JJ Abrams Star Trek film needed to be a reboot was because the Star Trek franchise was sinking under the weight of its own history, much of it internally inconsistent. I think we may have reached critical mass with the current Superman "official" CW history as well.
Regardless of the ultimate fate of the Smallville series (and no TV show lasts forever), Superman will continue as an, if not the iconic superhero of our times. Like Batman, he will not fade away, but will keep reappearing in somewhat different guises over the course of time. That being the case, who should the next Superman be?
I don't think that the folks who own the TV and film rights to the Man of Steel have taken enough of a look at the comic book version and the fact that DC Comics did their own Superman reboot back in 1985 (after Reeve first established his Superman role). The Silver Age Superman of the 1960s was almost all powerful. He could time travel just be flying real fast, could fly into the core of the sun, move planets just by pushing them, and see light years across space. Even for fantasy, he was completely unbelievable, especially as audiences matured.
The Superman character in the comic book reboot, by comparison, wasn't nearly that powerful. He needed air to breathe, and so couldn't exist indefinitely in space or underwater. He was strong, but not nearly strong enough to change the spin of the earth or to move the moon in its orbit with his bare hands. The costume was ordinary cloth and the little invulnerable force field that surrounded Clark's body managed to cover anything skin tight as well, keeping Clark modestly dressed throughout his many adventures (though the cape was frequently shredded).
One of the high points for me is that both Mom and Dad Kent got to stay alive and in one piece. Both the film and TV versions found it necessary to kill off Jonathan Kent and the Silver Age comics thought that Superman needed to be an orphan right after high school. The current comic book incarnation of Superman has managed to bulk up considerably over the years with its own history, canon, and Kryptonian mystique. It also contains some of the finest moments in the Superman saga, including the classic Death and Return of Superman up to the current War of the Supermen (and the story's prologue, which includes Zod and a knife which cuts Superman seems to have made its way into Smallville's season 9 finale Salvation).
Only a fraction of the comic book history could ever comfortably fit inside a film series or TV show, but bringing Clark and his story back down to basics and starting to build it again a piece at a time makes a lot of sense (and I suppose I'm about to be burned at the stake for saying such a thing).
I like Tom Welling's "Superman" but he either needs to put on the cape or not stand in the way of a Superman who can and will. The Smallville story has deviated significantly from most of the other Superman stories, which is a good thing, but as mentioned before, Superman is iconic. There are just some things that have to remain always the same for there to be a Superman. Flying is one of them. The costume is another. I think the story can be more "relatable" if a reboot brings him closer to earth and makes him less of a "god" than the films did, but at the same time, lets him truly be "super" unlike the Smallville Clark. Who is THE Superman? That answer depends on the point of view of the fans, but we can't be afraid to break from what we have now and starting over again. Even in TV years, Smallville's Clark is about 25 years old and actor Tom Welling turned 33 last month. No, he's not ready to start coloring his hair, but he is, or should be, ready to really be Superman. If not him and not in Smallville, then someone else and in another, probably big screen, venue.
Who am I? The person you see here isn't all that there is. This is a place where I can be all of the things people don't want me to be and I can say all the things people don't want me to say. I speak cynically but proceed hopefully. Jonathan Cyfer is just a pen name. The rest of me resides elsewhere.
