New Superman Film

Apparently, the Superman film franchise is getting a reboot, similar to that of the Batman franchise with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Or at least that's according to this new IGN article, which provides a detailed outline of ideas and suggestions for the possible plots, characters, etc. for the upcoming film.

I pretty much agree with most of the opinions in this feature. Certainly the franchise does need some fixing. I know that die-hard Richard Donner, 70s Superman fans will riot and revolt, but it's true. This is not only evident by the lack of financial success of Superman Returns, but also from the lack of any original story. Don't get me wrong -- Superman Returns was better than most of the superhero films I see today (I am of the minority opinion that all three Spiderman movies were atrocious, and that the first two Bryan Singer X-Men movies were, at best, satisfactory). However, it was far from a good Superman movie.

There were several problems with it, which I won't go into in detail, but I'll outline briefly here:
1) Casting. I agree with IGN that Brandon Routh did a decent job at playing Clark Kent, but was not believable as Superman. Yes, he did an adequate job of mimicking Christopher Reeve, but is that really what we want in a new Superman film? In addition, good actor or not, he is plain and simply too young, too soft, and not physically "big" enough. We are talking about Superman here. Many would claim the first modern superhero, an icon of American culture. We're talking about the guy who fought in the Cold War, the man who is strong and confident enough to fight not just Lex Luthor, but villains such as Brainiac, Darkseid, Metallo, and so on. We are talking about someone who is so familiar in American culture (and I'm sure other ones as well) that just taking one glance at the fabled "S" or one look at his face should conjure up immediate. Is this really a job for Routh? I think we need someone older, stronger, and who can do the job of playing the dual personality.

Kate Bosworth is another problem. Plain and simple, I just did not buy her as Lois Lane. Not for one second. The sassy, witty, smart, cosmopolitan reporter that every day poses more of a challenge for Clark/Superman than do his enemies. I don't see it.

2) Villains. As IGN notes, Lex Luthor is a crucial part of the Superman mythos. He must be present in a Superman story, especially if the filmmakers plan on retelling his origin (or his early years in Metropolis). We can't have a film without him. However, we can certainly make him more real. Donner's Luthor was certainly entertaining and was certainly evil (they made this really clear), but aren't we all sick of seeing the same movie Luthor re-hashed over and over? Again pulling from IGN:

The real Luthor thinks of himself as the ultimate hero. He's a world-renowned inventor and businessman. He basks in his status as Metropolis' favorite son, at least until Superman arrives to steal his spotlight. Luthor clashes with Superman because he firmly believes the alien hero is a detriment to humanity. Sure, Luthor is deluding himself when he claims he could save the world if only Superman didn't constantly get in the way, but that's the whole point. Luthor is a complex villain, and he needs to be portrayed as such.

We don't need another of the same, contrived plot by Luthor. We don't need to see him try to create his own continent or take over the world in some convoluted way. I also don't like to see him portrayed as some wacky and eccentric criminal constantly on the run from prison. No, I want the Luthor that works from the inside. I want the owner of Lexcorp, I want the Luthor that most people in Metropolis are stupid enough to trust. I want the Luthor that runs (and gets elected!) for president of the United States. This is a REAL challenge to Superman. Someone who rivals him for public respect.

That being said, I am also sick of Luthor. Period. Aside from him being Superman's antithesis in the DC Universe, one of the reasons that a better villain was not portrayed in past Superman films was because technology would not allow it. Now that technology has caught up with us and Luthor has been portrayed numerous times, I think it's time to bring in one of Kal-El's other notable villains. I think it's time for Brainiac! Especially, if the filmmakers plan to tackle some sort of origin story, showing Brainiac attacking Krypton and stealing the city of Kandor would be a great addition. Another great IGN suggestion: maybe even end the film with the appearance of Darkseid.

Those are just two of the many faults that can be remedied with a Superman reboot and I have every confidence that DC (and even Singer) can get it right in the future.

And We're Back...With a Post about Graphic Novels

Sorry for the temporary hiatus, folks. T and I have been incredibly busy over the past few weeks with work, life, love, action, romance, and everything in between. We now return to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Should schools start using graphic novels in their English and literature classes? Well, technically, should they make alternative mediums a crucial part of the curriculum? The Newsarama blog linked to an interesting article about it. Here's the kicker: it's told in the form of a comic book! Clever, huh?

I think that treating graphic novels as literary sources, especially for children in early ages, is a great idea. Younger kids find it easier to associate words with images. Art Spiegelman, notable writer of the famous novel, Maus, has even begun putting out a line of comics for children, in an effort to help expand their English skills and take an interest in reading.

Of course, there are critics. From Newsarama's link:

The only one who should use a graphic novel in school might be K-2, to ensure competence and retention of the new language. Anyone beyond that grade should be reading progressively higher forms of English text. What will they all do when they have to read Legal and Medical journals; convert them into Graphic Novels; oh I forgot, we won’t be producing any Doctors or Lawyers or Engineers, because THEY CAN’T READ!

This makes no sense to me. Critics of education with graphic novels seem to all think that there would be some slippery slope that would eventually lead to the diminished use of classic literature and standard books. I don't think this will happen. And I don't even think the comment about doctors, lawyers and engineers warrants a response beyond this acknowledgement of its absurdity.

True, graphic novels have their limits--though they contain heavy exposition, narration, and dialogue, they do sacrifice a great deal of English grammar and punctuation, since dialogues appear in thought bubbles. Of course, the same can be said about many forms of literature that do not come delivered in the typical book package. Take plays, for instance, which focus more on dialogues and monologues, than exposition.

All in all, I'm in favor of trying the graphic novel approach as a supplement to the classics and standards. Sure, there will be the conservative critics fearful of the year-3000, experimental approaches, but we have no substantial reason to suspect that graphic novels are any worse a medium than others.

Comic Book Sales Data

Here's something interesting. A new monthly feature that analyzes historical market trends in comic book sales. At first glance, the historical analyses (five-year and ten-year) don't seem all that informative, as they seem to analyze orders and pre-orders rather than sales. They also compare final orders to pre-orders, so I wonder how reliable that is. Still, this is pretty cool.

Fun note: 30 Days of Night was the top-selling trade paperback of 2003.