WHEN SUPER HEROES AREN'T SO SUPER

In the late 1970's, my friends and I would hunker down in front of the television set after school for the 3pm block of programming aimed directly at us.  In particular, we would follow Batman, our hero, and his sidekick Robin, as the Dynamic Duo fought off a new clever criminal each week.  And at the end of each show, we'd be reminded to tune in again at the 'Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel' (we didn't even know the show was in reruns).

The campy show with overly-emphasized KERPPPLOW! graphics of Batman's fist hitting a bad guy's face made whatever violence there was not only acceptable, but rather humorous to watch.  Batman never used a gun, and his motives were simply to save the damsel in distress, or the city, or the world, and put his arch enemy in prison.

Was there anything better than this?

We ran around in our underoos, and wore sheets on our back as capes and played super hero in our backyard and on Halloween.  Wearing a hallowed "S" on your chest meant something, and no one questioned it.


I haven't seen the new Superman yet, but in looking back at all the superhero films I have seen: The first Spider-Man series, the Batman Series (Christopher Nolan), The Superman Series (Christopher Reeves), Superman Returns (Bryan Singer), The Iron Man Series, Captain America, The Hulk (both films) The Avengers and the Fantastic Four, things are taking a turn for the dark and cynical.  I haven't seen Green Lantern and I've been told I've been spared, and Thor I caught parts of).

Being a parent, I'm not sure my folks ever worried about us watching a Marvel-inspired show or the Superman movie.  In 1978, when Superman burst onto the scene with the catch phrase, "you'll believe a man can fly" indeed that was the worst thing parents had to worry about, was that children would believe they too had this ability.  Unfortunately, as I recall, a few kids leaped to their deaths thinking just that.

Nowadays, I look at these movies and think just how many of these 'heroes' would I be comfortable having my child emulate?  Because besides being incredibly realistic and violent, most of these super heroes are not so super anymore.

The comic book industry, having faced the dark cloud of print media's demise, have sought to build larger audiences for their creations.  That has led to the reinvention of many of the characters that once led the DC and Marvel Universes, and in turn, characters that are now more reflective of today's society, and more to the point, us.

This led to the Dark Knight series, one in which Bruce Wayne's already tragic roots take a more central role to defining the motivations of the character.  Always having been pushed to become the Caped Crusader by his parents murder, the earlier versions of the character were often a bit campier so as to soften his dark past and focus on the heroic part of his character, that of preventing others the same fate.  These were fantasy stories, meant for kids as parables and methods for escapism into a world that wasn't so real.

But the recent Dark Knight series, animated movies and the critically acclaimed motion pictures, have painted a far different picture.  Batman is not so less inclined to use a gun (see the machine guns on his cycle) and though he's not inclined to murder anyone, he isn't disinclined to torture, beating people senseless, poisoning them (as he does Dr. Crane in the first of the movies) and letting Ra's al-Ghul die. 

Plain and simple, these choices paint The Dark Knight as a vigilante. A hero yes, but not necessarily one to emulate.  His tactics are just as vicious, and as made clear in the movie The Dark Knight, "you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain," the message is wrought with the pessimism of today's world.

While the original Spider-Man comics and animated shows often contained violence, the goal of the character still remained the same: save the world first, put the perpetrator in jail second.  Often times, Spider-Man foiled the scheme but was unable to wrangle Kingpin or Doc Ock. 

The Spider-Man movie series, while very true to the origins of the character, also had Spider-Man assist in the death of The Green Goblin in a most violent manner.  Sure, he was saving his own life, but the grizzly way in which Norman Osborne meets his end, whether in part by his own hand or not, is hard to imagine ever appearing in what we saw in the past.  The most recent Spider-Man focused on the background of Peter Parker's dead, and originally hardly mentioned, parents.  More cynically, the entire premise is now based on a conspiracy theory of sorts that the parents he never really knew were into some bad government stuff, a twist I could totally do without and one that makes his incarnation as Spider-Man hardly unique or odd.  In this new film series, any one of us could have been bitten by the million of genetically altered spiders and become Spider-Man.  To say this plot twist is depressing and boring is to be euphemistic.

Add Iron Man to the mix now, a man whose company (by this recent film incarnation) is contributing to the increased level of terrorism in the world.  Originally, this corporate super hero was fighting Communism in a more nationalistic battle of a common enemy.  However, in the movie series Stark's change of heart reveals another conspiracy being put upon him by his closest business partner whose only morality can be found in the almighty dollar.  This doesn't take into account that Tony Stark is narcissistic, and though apparently in the comics was an alcoholic, he has panic disorder in the movie series.  The movie series also abandoned Stark having the sort of noble secret Bruce Wayne has, that of being a hero and leading a double-life.  Thus, his playboy style has a purpose, to cover up the nobility.  In Iron Man the movie, Stark's in your face reveal at the end of the first movie puts his narcissism at its highest level, and though Downey portrays the character perfectly on screen, I no longer find this as appealing a character for my child to emulate.

Dark suit, dark background, serious glare -
Superman, is that you?

Perhaps worst of all has been the decay of Superman, a pure and innocent strong-man whose intentions for good and justice superseded any need for him to prove anything to anyone.  Christopher Reeve portrayed the Kent/Superman split persona so well, he set an incredibly high bar, even higher than George Reeves, who always came off somewhat arrogant to me.  Rather Reeve's Kent came across as bungling nerd, and as Superman, a caring father. 

Cut to Bryan Singer's version, one where Superman is caught up in the love he lost in Lois Lane (one he rejected by the way if we consider the end of Superman II the starting point of Superman Returns), that he spies on her occasionally.  While his vanity adds a human element to The Man of Steel, it also proffers a series of questions, most of which are disturbing.  Because Singer's movie contained very little prefacing of any inner struggle Clark might face with the fact he wants to be human but isn't (the theme of the entire Smallville series) this spying scene came off as rather freakish.

This weekend Superman: The Man of Steel hits theaters. To say all evidence that this movie is not going to be kid friendly has already been exhausted is to be kind.  Yet another origin movie, this one seems to pit Clark Kent growing up in the great northwest, hiding himself away, worried he'll be discovered, only to finally understand his calling when another Kryptonian, General Zod, appears with intent to take over the planet.

Visually, all signs are that the movie is set in dark ominous tones, using settings like the ocean as imagery to paint a picture of Clark's bumpy journey to become hero.  I hope to take in the movie soon, but I have very little doubt, having already seen footage of the trailers that kids are not this film's target audience (I have seen this since - liked how they brought the alien story to life, hated the darkness and the ending which slaughtered like a million people and Superman never seemed to care).  One trailer has star Henry Cavill screaming his anger while beating Zod to a pulp, then smirking while watching Michael Shannon's Zod first experience the physical pain of his untrained super-hearing and vision on earth. "It hurts, doesn't it," -- he says, almost in satisfactory way, implying that Superman's humanity will do everything to muddy his purity.  It's not to say he's not heroic anymore, but he's much too much like the rest of us now: confused, scared and unsure of who he is.  While that kind of character is more endearing to we adults who thought as kids we'd have all the answers once we grew up and now realize we don't, it certainly isn't reassuring to children. 

Where did our true superheroes go?  In an effort to build audience and make money, is it possible we've abandoned those characters that once lifted our ideals to a higher level?  Or is it that we are so vain and egocentric right now, it's impossible to accept a character of such high moral regard?  Instead we need to bring these guys down to our level, make them human, so that we can feel better about ourselves.  Honestly, I'm not so sure I want my Superman to be anything like me, or if he is, I don't think I want to know about it.  Our society, one where our government is now spying on us and where having secrets are always bad, hasn't yet learned that some things are better left off mysterious, or unsaid.

It would appear to me that the superheroes of my generation, characters of unyielding good and certain fairness, are now not so super anymore.  Sure, this is great for me as an adult.  It allows me to hang on to stories for another go-around, stories I thought I'd have to let go of as I got older.

Sadly, it provides nothing for my children who these characters were most meant for.  Perhaps that says a lot more than it should about the world we're living in.  All children need heroes.  It's just sad they won't be getting theirs anymore from Marvel or DC.