Can Snyder Make Superman Super Again?

For all his ability with scope and eye for the epic, hiring Zack Snyder might not be the 100 percent right decision.

Last week, it was announced that Zack Snyder, the famed director of the Dawn of the Dead remake, 300, and Watchmen, was given the reigns of one of Warner Brothers most troubled franchises - Superman. Selected by none other than Batman guru Christopher Nolan and gifted with the almost impossible task of resurrecting the Man of Steel after the less than successful attempt by former comic book messiah Bryan Singer, Messageboard Nation has, naturally, been abuzz about the selection. Some see it as an assault to the sensibilities of superhero fans everywhere. Others suggest that Snyder just might be the one to revive the character's failing film fortunes.

It's a nice thought - but before we leap to commercial conclusions, let's see what Snyder has to offer. He's definitely had some hits - Dawn and 300 were huge for their type - and he's proven he can tackle the genre (Watchmen had to be one of the toughest cinematic challenges ever). While his recent family film The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole was a technical masterpiece, it definitely had some narrative flaws. Luckily, the trailer and advanced word on next year's Sucker Punch is that the director has once again delivers the combination of eye candy and excitement that made his reputation in the first place.

So what does this mean for Superman. Back when Nolan was announced as the revamp's Godfather, we pondered the possibilities - and problems - with any pro-Krypton conceit. In essence, the main dilemma facing any filmmaker tackling this material is how to make it relevant to an audience used to individuals with superior (almost supernatural) physical prowess. Aside from a certain green mineral, Superman is more or less invincible. He can fly. He can move mountains. Heck, he even turned back time. His abilities are so steeped in the old school hero mythos that his good guy clean cut alter ego Clark Kent is almost laughable in his chiseled jaw white bread machismo. Obviously, in 2010, Supe is no longer cool. That doesn't necessarily means he's not commercial.

The problem with all previous adaptations of the material is that they are locked into a desire to stay straight on the legacy path. We have to have the destruction of Krypton. Little alien baby Kal-El has to be adopted by those Midwestern milestones the Kents. He has to suffer through the whole "stranger in a strange land" ideal (mixed with some mandatory teen angst), run off and found his Fortress of Solitude, and eventually become a mild mannered reporter for the Daily Planet. Some of the other prerequisites have been altered slightly. A lack of phone booths have made such quick change stations obsolete, and in these days of hypersonic airplanes and fuel injected engines, being faster than a relatively slow locomotive doesn't help.

As far back as the '40s, when Fleischer Studios brought the animated adventures of the red caped champion to the big screen, such fabled folklore was set. It continued on through the amazingly popular Adventures of Superman series (beginning in the '50s and even more successful in syndication during the '60s) and with Richard Donner's 1978 film. In fact, it seems like every decade has had their version, from Lois and Clark in the '90s through Smallville in the new millennium. But as they are want to say, such overwhelming familiarity is bound to lead to some critical contempt. Both Singer and previous sequel helmer Richard Lester have felt such blowback when their takes on the material met with huge purist blowback (and restoration revisionists).

Of course, no one is ready to turn Superman into some gloomy Goth freak (one look at what Tim Burton and Nicolas Cage wanted to do to the character and you get the idea...) and yet recent movie makeovers given to classic characters like Alice in Wonderland (again, from the mind of Mr. Edward Scissorhands) have proven to be wildly inventive and successful. Even Nolan's own reinvesting of Batman into a recognizable real world dynamic has worked amazing well. Of course, when the speculation was at a fever pitch involving the next direction Superman would take, a review of a proposed JJ Abrams script for the project argued how wrongheaded some interpretations of the wannabe re-franchise can still be. For his part, Snyder has remained joyful yet cautious. All he has let slip so far is that the main villain battling our blue suited hero will be...General Zod? Maybe? These statements were later countered with claims of the inclusion of Lex Luthor, Brainac, and...well, you know the 'Net.

And so Superman stands at yet another creative crossroads, flush with an infusion of new talent (and one with real "vision" if we are to believe the hype) and carrying enough artistic carte blanche to get over the standard budgetary and star power hurdles. Casting will be crucial here. While Brandon Routh was actually the best thing about Singer's otherwise subpar reboot, one imagines Snyder putting his own mark on the production by picking his own compliant model. So far, the choices he has made for other films are very intriguing indeed. Few would have guessed that Billy Crudup would be a viable Dr. Manhattan, or that the all singing, all sullen motion picture Phantom of the Opera Gerard Butler would make a kick-ass Greek king. When he gets around to it, the announcement of the next Superman should indicate where Snyder intends to take his interpretation.

Still, for all his ability with scope and eye for the epic, hiring Zack Snyder might not be the 100% right decision. There are a lot of film fans who lump him together with McG, Michael Bay, and likeminded laborers suffering under their own 'blockbuster or bigger' delusions. While his films have been popular, they haven't been the kind of cash cow slam dunk that get studios really excited (even with Nolan's Dark Knight/Inception cache in the background). Instead, he's a weird combination of respectable and yet unpredictable, geek lightning rod and passionate defender of the content he is creating. He was reverent to George Romero with his zombie flick. He gave Frank Miller and Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons their due when meticulously bringing their ideas to another medium. Even his work on Ga'Hoole suggests a detail oriented admiring of source. In such a case, Superman seems in pretty good hands - not necessarily the most assured filmmaking fists, but decent nonetheless.

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.