There was a time when Superman was regarded as the king of the superheroes.
We refer to the house that publishes the comics as DC now but for part of its existence it was known as Superman-DC-National Periodical Publications.
DC was so protective of the characters that it even sued to have Captain Marvel, a very silly super-hero published by a rival house, banned. (Eventually I think DC obtained the rights to the character).
DC gave Superman his own book plus he took over Action comics where he first appeared. Then subsidiary characters the Superman universe (Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen etc.) also got their own books. The tearing of Superman and Batman led to World’s Finest comics. And through the various avatar of the Justice League (originally Justice Society), there was no doubt that Superman was boss. A teenaged version of the character called Superboy got his own book as did the Legion of Superheroes of which Superboy was the star. A cousin of Superman called Supergirl became the heroines of her own comic. And I guess we should be grateful that krypte the Superdog did not become a full-fledged star.
Such was Superman’s popularity in the Forties and the Fifties that at least two serials and at least one feature film about him were made (with Kirk Alyn and then George Reeves is Superman). Then came the long-running TV show with George Reeves. (The show and its star became the subject of a recent movie starring Ben Affleck as Reeves/Superman. This makes Affleck the only actor in history to be seen on the screen in both Superman and Batman costumes!)
But by the mid Sixties there was simply no interest in Superman. What went wrong? My theory is that the TV show (much more than the comics) embodied the values of past Second World War America. At the start of each episode we were assured that though Superman was a visitor from another planet, he now stood for “truth, justice and the American way”. By the mid-Sixties, the counter-culture had taken over. Kids grew their hair long, listened to rock music, smoked pot, and objected to the whole “truth, justice and the American way thing.”
When the Batman TV show was made in the Sixties, the producer aimed for a pre-teen audience and encouraged older audiences to watch it for laughs; what they called ‘camp’.
It got so bad that by the mid Seventies when the Salkinds, a father and son team of independent producers, thought of a Superman movie, nobody (including, initially the older Salkind) in Hollywood knew who Superman was. DC had passed in to the hands of Warner Brothers, and they said that Superman was not a big deal at all. Eventually, the Salkinds raised money for the movie at the Cannes Film Festival by announcing that Mario Pozo (who wrote the Godfather) would write the script and that Marlon Brando would star. (Brando was paid a huge sum for a brief cameo as Superman’s father).
"So, is it curtains for Superman? Not quite. But let’s just say that he is not the king of all he surveys any longer. Now, he’s just a constitutional monarch!" |
The success of the first two Superman movies (thanks largely to Christopher Reeve’s masterly performance) revived interest in the character but it did not last. The third movie in the series was a dud and a fourth was unwatchable. A TV show called Lois and Clark played the story as a sort of sit-com and though DC hired John Byrne to re-invest the character for the comics, it never really worked.
Meanwhile a darker version of Batman as re-interpreted by Tim Burton became a cinematic phenomenon – till the series went for laughs and floundered. But when Christopher Nolan revived Batman, Hollywood believed it was time to give the Superman character another shot.
Sadly, nothing had worked. The first movie Superman Returns, flopped because of inept casting. A second movie tried to re-invent the story as science-fiction with a new Superman (Henry Cavils) and most traditional Superman fans (i.e. yours truly) hated it. It made some money but Hollywood decided that Superman was not a strong enough character to sustain a franchise on his own. So the next movie will team Superman with Batman (played by Ben Affleck) and even Wonder Woman.
So here’s my question: why has the one-time king of the super-heroes found it so difficult to retain his throne? All of DC’s tricks have only worked intermittently. When the John Byrne re-invention did not work, they killed Superman off and then resurrected him. But even then, people soon lost interest.
My guess is that Superman is too clear-cut and too powerful to succeed in a more cynical era. Batman has dare edges and in Tim Burton’s re-imagining was almost as unhinged as the villains he pursued. But Superman cannot have a dark side that would go against the DNA of the character. Also, how can you create any dramatic tension which your hero is so powerful that nothing can harm him? One solution was Kryptonite but that soon got boring. (Kryptonite is debris from Superman’s home planet which has the power to harm him.) Another solution is to make him lose his powers temporarily. (They did that in the Salkind series). And the third is to make him face to villains from Kryptonite who are as powerful as he is. (They do that all the time including in the last movie).
But once you’ve done all that, you run out of options. Nor can you really play around with his Love Life (as you can with Batman’s) because the Superman – Lois Lane storyline is set in stone. And even when he has flings (with Wonder Woman, I’m guessing, in the next movie), you know he’ll go back to Lois.
So, is it curtains for Superman? Not quite. But let’s just say that he is not the king of all he surveys any longer. Now, he’s just a constitutional monarch!
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Friend's Name:
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Additional Text:
Security code:
Other Articles
-
Only five years ago I would have been stuck with Akasaka in Def Col. or Moti Mahal Deluxe in South Ex. Now I have amazing options to choose from.
-
In the pursuit of vegetarianism and vegetarian guests lies the future. And great profit.
-
I think that Indians have less desire to ‘belong’ than Brits do. We don’t need social approval. And this is a good thing.
-
And ask yourself: have I really been enjoying the taste of vodka all these years or just enjoyed the alcoholic kick it gives my cocktails?
-
There is a growing curiosity about modern Asian food, more young people are baking and the principles of European cuisine are finally being understood
See All