Superman under the Gunn

Well, it wasn't as bad as I was afraid it would be.

But it wasn't nearly as good as it deserved to be.

Superman/Clark Kent  

David Corenswet

who is a REALLY BIG MAN, by the way--like, oddly, noticeably BIG, in a way no other Superman actor has ever been--

is quite fine as Superman.  He carries it off, remaining believable despite Gunn's, well, Gunnisms (more on those later).  He never swears (although there ARE several "goshes"), saves squirrels and (freaky bad CGI) babies, and really cares about people.  Aesthetically, I rather like that his costume is not skin-tight; after all, he's got on a working outfit for putting out fires, he's not an aerobics instructor.  

Et al. 

The movie is full of supporting characters who do next to nothing, such as Ron Troupe, Steve Lombard, Cat Grant, even Martha Kent.  But I mark that as a plus.  Anybody's real life has lot of "supporting characters" in it, who are not all always essential element to every "plot" you are experiencing.  I appreciate Gunn's inclusion of them just like that of the DCU's signature brands (Zesti Cola, Big Belly Burger, etc.).

Jimmy Olsen

The actor still seems a little off-model to me.  But he is more on-model than almost every OTHER live-action Jimmy Olsen.

I mean, we all know what Jimmy Olsen is SUPPOSED to look like.

But the character is used well in the film.  He's not a damsel in distress, but he's quirky, pro-active, gets his story in a characteristically weird way, and is, for no reason anyone in universe understands, attractive to the ladies.

Lois Lane

I don't know how this actress is but, well, not to be unkind, but she just doesn't seem IMPRESSIVE enough to be Lois Lane.  Although she is certainly more on model than that Amy Adams (?) person.  She simply doesn't seem sufficiently substantial to Superman's love interest (or even Clark's frankly).  I'm no fan of Margo Kidder, but at least her Lois Lane was someone to be reckoned with.

Lex 'Bingo Caller" Luthor (Nicholas Hoult)

Look. Nicholas Hoult seems very nice. And pretty. But he was in WAY over his head in this role. You know what more frightening than Hoult's Lex Luthor?  Gene Hackman saying, "Almost nobody", while not even ON SCREEN. Or "by causing the deaths of millions of innocent people".  

I am STILL unnerved by the inhuman coldness of that line, fifty years later.

Hackman's Luthor may have been goofy but... that was part of the point.  That didn't make him any less dangerous. Kind of goofy but still very dangerous is ALSO Superman's brand, remember.  

Kevin Spacey could say "kryptonite" in the goofiest way imaginable, but I never doubted that he was exactly as brilliant as he claimed, dangerously as heck, and irremediably evil. And that's just Spacey, not even Spacey's Luthor.  

Even Jesse Eisenberg

poor, terminally weird Jesse Eisenberg

seemed achingly smart (as all his characters do, I believe).

Hoult did the one thing you can't do as Luthor; he made me doubt Luthor's intelligence. Badly. 

This man shouting 'brains over brawn!' as he threatens to burst the seems of his clothing with every movement and is literally taking over a foreign country with massive firepower is ...
well, I will be kind and call it "comic book irony".

Eve Teschmacher

At first, I didn't like her. Then eventually I realized what they were doing with her and that everything I thought was wrong about her was.... my mistake.  Also on the villain's side of things, I have to confess that Gunn's geek bait of Sydney Happersen and Otis Berg ... yeah, fine. He made me smile with those.

Hawkgirl

And the award for Least Impressive Hawkgirl of All Time goes to... whoever that actress was. Really, I can't even be bothered to look it up.

4

Quick, at this point what could be more trite than Alan Tudyk as an alien or a robot (AGAIN)?  Answer: Alan Tudyk as an Alien Robot.  This is the same kind of casting from the Geek Toolbox that gives us geek favorite Nathan Filion, looking every bit of 75 years old as Guy Gardner.

Mister Terrific

Fine; Mister Terrific WAS exactly as bad-ass as he should be.  But why he should occasionally sound like a cast member of "Good Times' simply because he is black is beyond me and not really in character.

Metamorpho

Metamorpho looked terrible (and not in the way he is supposed to). Naturally, Andrew Carrigan was flawless in the part, because he always is.  But the character uses his powers in EXACTLY the way he CAN'T, according to every single story the character has appeared in since his inception.  It's just another piece of evidence that Gunn doesn't really care about what the characters are, but only about what function they can serve in the story he wants to tell.

Plot Twist

Believe it or not, I actually approve of the plot involving Jor-El and Lara. But I also remember that John Byrne did it first.

Q.E.D. Byrne is NOT a subtle writer; but he is MUCH MUCH subtler than James Gunn.

Plot Problems

I'm only going to list one:

Lex is desperate to make Superman look bad, eh?  But he never uses HIS OWN SUPERMAN CLONE to frame Superman?  Stupid.

Atrocious Gunnism

Oh, they were legion, I'm afraid.  Here's a few.

• Fight scenes with diegetic pop music scores.  I would have preferred simply watching Mr. Terrific kick ass, thank you.
• Supergirl as a drunken frat girl for comic relief.
• Krypto as comic relief. "What?! Krypto's out of control! That's hilarious!" No, it's not. The ONLY Krypto joke that comes close to landing is the dog's perfectly natural reaction to a T-Sphere.
• The Kents as comic relief.  Just because the Kents are "simple farm folk" doesn't mean they would use bad grammar.  
• The sadly GotG-style "Justice Gang" as comic relief. By the way, the idea that such a group would have a corporate sponsor WITHOUT yet having an agreed upon name and image is embarrassingly unrealistic.  
• Was the Justice Gang fighting a giant evil beach ball in the background of a very serious conversation supposed to be funny?  It wasn't.  But that's just about what I would expect from Gunn.
• "So is 'Gary'." Is that supposed to be funny? Not only do I not find Gunn funny, I frequently can't even recognize his attempts at humor as such.  
• Oh, no, are plunky sidekicks are about to fall off the edge of the building! Oh, whoops, it's okay!
• "I'm doing ... important stuff."  Yeah; no. Superman is not a Marvel character, Gunn.
• Clark Kent, a professional reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, completely blind-sided and nonplussed by Lois's straightforward report questions during their 'interview'?  Leading to their faux relatable-couple badinage?  Ugh. Gunn really can only write one style of character, it seems.

Many people will simply be happy to get a non-grimdark version of Superman and, yes, that's in the plus column.  I simply hope that it is the message that resounds from this film, rather than Gunn's goofy, Marvel-style take on things.

Superman's Costume

 

Okay, I'm going to address this issue (the teaser pic from the upcoming Superman film) to get it out of my system. I am possibly the only DC comics fan who has NOT read any of the debate about this. But I have seen the HEADLINES of those articles enough to keep me aware of the issue.

Before I address the photo, I have to remind us of something about Superman's outfit:

It's a costume.

That may seem like a dumb statement of the obvious, but let me explain.  My point is that it is not a "combat suit" (such as Batman and other non-super characters favor, out of necessity). 

Some combat outfits are tactical.
Other are mostly ... strategic.

The man's invulnerable; the idea of a suit that "aids" him in combat is absurd. The only outfit that could possibly "aid" him in combat would be his birthday suit, since the fewer clothes he has on the faster he should be able to soak up solar energy.

That's what the Metropolis Prurient Scientific Society would prefer.

It's not a "disguise" (as are superhero outfits with masks).  Superman does want to keep his private identity secret, but he doesn't really rely on his heroing outfit to do that.  He relies on his super-thespianism and the idea that no one really has any reason to suspect that Superman even HAS a civilian identity.  

Now THAT is a disguise.

It's not a "uniform", such as the original X-Men wore to designate their status a members of a team,

Except for the guy running around apparently (mostly?) naked like he's a gay porn star.  
Must be an influencer.

or like those coordinated but individualized uniforms the Athramites designed for the Legion.

I love the Athramites.
If you do not know the Athramites, you have been deprived.

Uniforms, after all, are for characters who are known principally as members of a team, not merely incidentally.

The dumbest part about the New 52 Justice League was giving three of them the SAME COLLAR to give them more of a team look.  As if Hal, Arthur, and Clark go SHOPPING together.

No, it is costume, which he puts on for his "performances" as Superman (because, as previously discussed, Superman is essentially a circus performer).  

With all that in mind, let's examine the missteps in the photo of the film costume.

The costume does not seem well designed for the costume's purpose.  In contrast to, say, Batman's outfit, the purpose of Superman's costume is to make him very visible: a circus performer must be SEEN.  And clearly visible from a distance.

This iconic sequence of utterances conveys this need perfectly.

Superman needs to be as visible as possible so that people can be inspired by his presence and comforted by his arrival on the scene.  The movie costume doesn't shy away from the inherent color contrast in Superman's colors, but they have made them rather dark. The colors are right, but the hues are wrong, in that the fail to serve the costume's actual purpose.  That's misstep #1.

Misstep #2 is the texture.  The movie costume is all line-ified and Braille-bumpy.

Superman is a superhero, not a sofa, and does not require "texture".  This added complexity is not merely unnecessary, it is distracting.

For 25 years I was a performer on stage with a large chorus.  Often we were reminded to focus less on "adding" to the performance than on "subtracting" anything that would distract the audience. It was a process of working to remove moves or notes or vocal occurrences that might "stick out" from the whole, and distract the audience from the entirety of the performance.

So, too, should be the approach to Superman's performances as Superman.  His outfit already has a cape, and pants with a belt over a leotard, a chest emblem, those funky books and sometimes funky sleeves.  No additions are welcome, certain not detail that is completely invisible to the crowd of citizens who is the audience for his deeds.  Superman is not a complex character.  He may have lots of powers, but part of his appeal and staying power is just how simple a concept he is.  Anything that veers away from that simplicity is counter purposeful.

No counterargument based in some cobbled together movie lore can prevail. "Well, it's a Kryptonian garb that blah blah blah."  These are merely post hoc justifications for an aesthetic misstep and I will not dignify them with refutation; they are simply to be dismissed.

I do NOT deem the movie costume's collar as a misstep.  Yes, Superman's outfit traditionally  has an open neckline evocative of the shirts worn by circus strongmen.

But, other than showing how thick his neck is, that element of his costume serves no purpose but as a historical reference, and if someone wants to use a more natural and modern collar style, I see no reason to object strongly.

Also, I give a thumb's UP to the chest logo.  It looks BOTH like an alien symbol AND an image that any user of the Roman alphabet would perceive as an "S".  It's a fine line to tow, and they seemed to have done an excellent job on it, especially as it is MORE abstract than we have often seen, and so is in keeping with my views of the need for simplicity in Superman's costume.

Now for the blocking of the photo.  Look, I'm all for subverting expectations here and there to freshen up a literary property.  

For example, John Byrne's revivification of the Kents in his reboot of Superman became obvious only in retrospect; they had been DEAD in every other version of Superman (no, Superboy doesn't count).  

But this relaxed boot-donning pose is a severe misstep. Superman was mean to be a man of action; it's LITERALLY the title of the comic he started in.  And this putting on his boot pensively while sitting down is just about as inactive a pose as you could find outside a Hopper painting. Personally, the only thing I can think when looking at him in this pose is William Moulton Marston's fetish about Wonder Woman putting on her boots.

Showing Superman slowly putting on one boot like he's about to walk the dog in the rain, with no sign of urgency, concern, or even awareness of the disaster befalling Metropolis behind isn't some fresh interp, it's possibly the most aggressively out of character pose I can imagine.

Trite though it might seem after 90 years, there is a reason that THIS is our consistent image of Superman going into action. People are in DANGER and, superspeed notwithstanding, Superman LEAPS into action to save them, before even having finished his costume change, because there is no time to waste while lives are in danger.

And these are only the criticisms of the scene's symbolism.  There are also cogent, in-universe, fanboy logistical objections that are hard to dismiss.  Superman can FLY.  He is often depicted floating in mid-air simply because he CAN (and it leaves him more ready to act).  Why on earth is he SITTING DOWN to put his boot on?!  That's how humans do it because we can't defy gravity through force of will. 

Perhaps the creators of this film thought that the emphasis on him putting on his costume was a good way of highlighting the costume. However, as far as I call tell, it only seems to highlight much they simply don't get what Superman is about, not merely to me, but to most people.

Gunn Takes Aim at Superman

Ugh. Apparently, scriptwriter/director/producer James Gunn wasn't content with taking Marvel characters, known for taking themselves too seriously, and re-making them as goofy clowns.  

In fairness, it does seem exactly like something Chris Pratt himself would do.

That's fine, perhaps.  For Marvel.

But now he's zeroed in on DC characters, known for holding themselves to a higher moral standard, and turning that on its head.  Yes, James Gunn is making a move about the tritest trope in comics: an Evil Superman.

It's been done. Ad nauseum. And with HATS.

Oh, sure, they aren't CALLING him Superman; we all know how THAT would go over in the courts.

Do NOT tug on Superman's copyright.  Just ask Billy Batson.

But all the signs are there in the trailer for BrightBurn.  A barren farm couple wishes for a child and one arrives from the skies in a rocket, which they hide in the barn.  As it grows, this alien child develops super-strength, super-speed, the ability to fly, heat vision, an affinity for red capes and... EVILNESS.

Super-sewing develops later in adolescence, it seems.

It's already being touted as 'a radical new genre': the superhero movie as HORROR.  Because Chronicle doesn't count, I guess. Or any of the other 1000 films/shows where someone gets superpowers and uses them for evil.  No, I guess it only counts when you can clearly recognize the superhero being ripped off and when it's the good-est superhero of all: Superman.

An Evil Superman! Such a modern radical cutting edge concept! Without the vision of James Gunn, who could have thought it before? Except perhaps... ever generation of Superman writers, ever, in every medium.

Simply wearing that much eye-shadow counts as federal crime.

"Coffee.Black. NOW."

He was originally from OUR earth, in case you forgot.

Look. I really like horror movies. And maybe this will be good one.  But was it really necessary to ride Superman's cape to make it?  If you insist on doing that, the LAST thing you have to right to do is make any claim of originality in that idea.

Superman Comes Out

My reaction to Clark Kent revealing to his roommate and colleague, Jimmy Olsen, his secret identity as Superman?

Well, it's about time.

Golden and Silver Age Superman was a pretty lonely guy, with no one who knew his secret and no one to confide in.  Although the Golden Age Superman was too manly too discuss it out loud. Or care, really.

Pictured: FREEZE BREATH

It's the reason that whenever you think of a DC hero pondering his situation via thought-balloon, you almost invariably are thinking of Superman. Batman talked to Robin and Alfred and that old police guy with the mustache.  Wonder Woman talked to Etta and the Holliday Girls and her mother and the Amazons and, well, Wonder Woman never shut up, basically.

About bondage, mostly

Superman had no one to talk to, so readers were shown his inner monologue a lot.

*choke*!

This contributed, by the way, to  his tendency more than his colleagues to break the fourth wall; with no one to talk to, he talked to us.

"Instead, send that money to the Superman Super-Fan Club, to fund our campaign to put my face on the quarter!"

You seldom caught Batman talking to the reader.

Except in a Superman story. P.S. Superwoman's a dick.

In case you never thought about it, it's also one of the reasons the Batman/Superman friendship was so important in the Silver Age; Batman was the only person Superman had to talk to (because who wants to talk to Supergirl?)

Hey, Rob; ixnay on the Upermansay, okay?

One of the most important changes John Byrne made for DC when they rebooted Superman after the Crisis was to have his parents still be alive. Many of today's readers were raised with the idea of the Kents as living touchstones of Superman's humanity and morality.  But since Superman's re-reboot in the Latest Crisis, his parents have been dead; they died in a car crash, a solid reminder to readers that Superman can't be everywhere and fix all problems (and that not all problems are caused by supervillains or long-dormant diseases embedded in buried pirate treasure).

Venal, greedy Martha! Killed by your own dreams of avarice, just like in some "Twilight Zone" episode.
You had it coming, lady.

In the Silver Age, Jimmy Olsen was Superman's Pal-- Superman who lied to him every day of his life.  And for no reason, really.  The stated reason that Superman never confined to anyone who he was is that doing so might endanger their lives.  C'mon, Jimmy's life was already in constant danger from being Superman's Pal.  How could anyone's life be MORE in danger than Jimmy Olsen's?!

Never a dull moment, eh, Lucy?

No one has known quite what to do with Jimmy Olsen since Crisis.  Heck, it's easy to make a case that no one knew what to do with Jimmy Olsen BEFORE the Crisis; that's why he was always being made to swallow noxious foreign substances with bizarre results.  Like Jack Kirby.

Clark's reveal to Jimmy takes two problems and turns them into one solution.  It gives Clark someone to relate to as BOTH Clark and Superman who knows his secret, and gives Jimmy and actual narrative function in Superman fiction.

The Daily Planet

I've been inspired by Superman lately.  As more and more of DC Entertainment's movie plans become public, it's clear they're going to build a universe of cinematic heroes around Superman.  

The character has been struggling to find a new resonant characterization in the DCU's new continuity,   but in only a few issues, Geoff Johns has, as is his speciality, returned to the character to its roots in a way that still feels fresh and comes as a natural outgrowth of previous story elements.  

I also watched some of the Fleischer Superman cartoons,  which are still astonishing today in their beautiful technique and their efficient storytelling; hard to imagine the impact their had on their contemporary public.

In fact, I was inspired to make the following two Heroclix maps for him.

The Daily Planet Newsroom

Lovely balconies; such a sunny place, Metropolis.

The Daily Planet Rooftop

Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel.

If you'll look carefully, you see that the two maps are correlated.  You can play by themselves, or you play them together at the same time, with the Rooftop being "above" the Newsroom. You can even have Clark change to Superman in a storeroom and fly out the window to appear on the map above!

Other innovations in these two maps are doors (which block line of fire but not movement) and flying terrain, which only flyers can occupy and which allows them to ignore the elevation of other characters.  Flying figures, however, are not required for playing on either map; but without them there will be a merry chase around that giant globe, I'll wager.

"Two-tier" map combos like the Daily Planet Newsroom/Rooftop are my new schtick in map-making,  facilitated by the fact that I have a two-tied glass coffee table that's PERFECT for playing them on.

What other vertically stacked maps could I do this way? What do you think of:

• Wayne Manor/the Batcave?
• Commercial Street/Sewer Below?
• Innocent looking shop below/villain's lair above?
• Spooky house/ second floor?
• Church graveyard/catacombs?
• A boat on the ocean/the sea floor beneath it?
• The jungle floor/ the treetops above?
• STAR labs public area below/ private labs above?
• Wayne Tower lobby/executive suite?
• Lexcorp lobby/executive suite?
• Antique shop/ mystical lair?
• Something independent, such as the Phantom Zone, the Fifth Dimension, or the Mirror World, that could be laid "over" any map?
• Something I"m not thinking of that you will...?

First Witness: Superman

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the evidence has alreadybeen placed before you: it seems increasingly likely that DC will be rebooting its multiverse in the spring of next year.  The question being put to you is not whether it will… but whether it should. 

I call to the stand my first witness:  the Man of Steel, Superman.”

“Do you solemnly swear etc., so help you Rao?”
“I never lie.”

“Unless someone’s asking Clark Kent whether he’s Superman.”

“Superman never lies.  Clark Kent, however, is a lying sack of babootch poo.”

“Superman, can you tell the court how you feel you’ve fared in the New52 reboot?”

“World’s best known superhero loses parents, girlfriend, and job overnight.”

“You really are a reporter, aren’t  you? Please elaborate.”

“Well, my parents, universally credited as the source my unwavering moral compass, used to be alive before. Now they are dead.  No big reason for it. Just easier not to have to write them, I suppose.  I used to have two long-running love interests, Lana Lang and Lois Lane.  Curious—both have the initials—“

“And now?”

“Lana’s an engineer.  Lois has some other boyfriend.”

“Who’s secretly a supervillain or a longtime rival or your moral opposite?”

“No.  Anyway, now I have to date someone who grew up in a lesbian commune and has a bondage fetish.”

“Charming.  And work?”

“I think I work at some website that can’t possibly support me and is really the brainchild of Cat Grant.  I think maybe I still live with my pal Jimmy Olsen, who’s now a wealthy heir.”

“So…they’re supporting you?”

“I—well, they are my supporting cast.  Maybe I crush coal into diamonds and sell them, I don’t know, don’t ask me.”

“You seem uncomfortable with this line of questioning.”

“No….it’s …the collar. It’s itchy.”

“And that bothers YOU?”

“It’s super-itchy.  Besides, I’m no longer wearing underwear and that makes me feel a little self-conscious.  That’s not how I was raised.”

“How do you know?  Your parents have been dead since the reboot so you’ve never met them.”

“Anyway, I don’t think I’m faring very well since the reboot.  Ever since it happened I’ve been feeling short-temped and stand-offish.” 

“So you’d appreciate a chance to go back or start fresh?”

“That’d be super, yes.”

“No more questions.”

Bat-theater and Super-Circus

Comparisons of Batman and Superman are a staple of “comic book literary analysis”. While only the comicscenti can consider, say, the measureless variety of the glory of VIBE, almost anyone who lives within a 100 miles of toilet paper can talk about some of the differences between Batman and Superman.

And about 50 percent of them DO. If I had dollar for every time I’ve read a newspaper article explain that Batman is the archetype for all non-“powered” heroes and Superman the archetype for all “powered” heroes, and every time someone has shared with me the “Gotham=NYC by day/Metropolis=NYC by night” observation, I’d be using the interest my fortune generated to run a personal MegaMillions lottery, every week.

Still, just as “every issue is someone’s first”, every person must discover the Batman/Superman dichotomy for himself, and so it’s an issue that always bears re-examination. My observation today certainly stems from all the regular contrasts between the two World’s Finest, but it’s still one I’ve never heard anyone make in quite this form:

Batman is the theater;
Superman is the circus.

Batman’s professional theatricality is well-known. His origin included pondering what costume he should wear for a frightening appearance. His “disappearing act”, that he uses on even his closest allies. The needlessly dramatic Bat-Signal. As Ra’s Al-Ghul says in the current Batman film trilogy, “I see you took my advice about theatricality a bit... literally!" Batman is a stage performer, waiting in the wings, timing his entrances, and even taking a bow. Like any actor, he is essentially a regular person, who makes himself extraordinary through his dramatic role in a plot, usually as the protagonist against an equally threatening antagonist. And, just like the theater, a Batman story is generally a night-time affair. Anyone else remember where Bruce's parents were right before they were killed...?

If Batman is theatrical, then Superman is circensic (that’s “circus-y” for you less Latinate types). It’s no coincidence that his costume is based on that of a contemporary circus performer; Superman is, at his most basic, a circus strong-man.



He can lift things that you cannot. Like the magic mentalist, he can “see through solid walls”. Like the aerialist, he can fly through the air with the greatest of ease. Although, Superman wears a costume, he’s not wearing to scare you or even to impress you; he’s wearing it to signal “I’m working now.” Like the circus performer, Superman’s attraction is really just What He Can Do That You Can’t. He is NOT an ordinary person, and his extraordinary deeds don’t really require a plot at all. Not surprising, then, that the Superman’s ringmasters – writers – often don’t feel a strong need to build a plot around him; some breezy persiflage that draws attention to the incredibility of what he’s about to do is sometimes all you’ll get. That’s a lot harder for the “directors” of Batman’s plays to get away with.



Like Batman, Batman’s villains lurk in the wings of Gotham preparing to make a dramatic entrance, followed by a quick exit, lest the curtain fall on them at the Act’s end. As characters, they are not aware of the audience, only of the other actors in the play. Most of what Batman does isn’t seen by the citizens of Gotham, just by us from beyond the Fourth Wall. Most of what Superman does IS seen by the public; that’s almost the point. Superman foes, they usually just burst into the center ring of Metropolis (or high above it), in broad daylight. They are well aware of their audience: the gawking spectators below, yelling, “Look! Up in the sky!”



And the Man of Steel, with little other prologue needed, leaps into the ring to accomplish the superhero equivalent of bending the steel bar, pulling the locomotive with his teeth, or lifting the elephant.



Since the only thing required for his act is a Great Feat That Needs Accomplished, the ringmaster often does away with even an antagonist for Superman. He’s just as likely to be dealing with a natural disaster or technological accident as with a real “villain”. That almost never happens with Batman; people don’t watch theater to see actors fight forest fires, they want to see characters in personal and ideological conflict with one another. Small wonder that Superman’s villains are generally considered less developed, motivated, and compelling than Batman’s.



I have mentioned in a previous post that in the Fleischer cartoon, Superman never talks; he is man of Action, just like a circus performer. Batman, however, as a stage actor, needs to talk; heck, what do you think Robin was really for? To give Batman someone to talk to about the plot.

Superman’s supporting cast includes, essentially, other ring-performers (Supergirl,-dog,-monkey,-horse, -cat,-boy) and “ringmasters” (that is, reporters, whose job is mostly to point at other people doing stuff: “Hey, look! Another great Superman story for the front page!”). Batman’s supporting cast includes a former actor (Alfred) and the police’s media frontman (Gordon). And…

Robin, the Boy Wonder. Which helps us realize why Dick Grayson, circus aerialist, was the glue that held the World’s Finest team together. Dick Grayson is the intersection of Batman’s theatrical approach and Superman’s circensic approach. And in fact numerous comic book stories have made the point that Robin/Nightwing is kind of the intellectual offspring of both Batman and Superman’s approach to things. If the New52’s Dick Grayson could be written always with that in mind, combining the best of both world’s finest, Nightwing could become a breakout star of the reboot.

Cool and Unusual

Riddle me this, dear readers! What is harder to become the harder you try to become it?

Answer: Cool.

“Cool” as a label is fairly new when compared to more venerable terms of praise like “nice”, “excellent”, or “great”. “Cool” as a slang for “fashionable”, “in style”, or “exemplary in its good qualities” began in about 1933, in large part due to its usage by jazz saxophonist Lester Young.

Lester Young would have sweated "cool", if he ever sweated.

But the term found broader exposure in the beatnik culture of the 1950s and the term really came into its own, I’d say, by about 1953 when the term “uncool” became common. Nothing so firmly cements a concept that being able to label all things either “X” or “un-X”.

A beatnik One who was so cool, he was also smokin' hot. Woof.

A comparative newcomer in the world of Webster, perhaps, among “slang” words no term has had great longevity than “cool”. Most of its contemporary fellows from the 1930s have aged and withered. Seldom do you hear current teenager describe an option as “jake”, condemn someone as a “whanger”, or dismiss the unlikely as “bushwa”. Yet “cool” remains.

Perhaps it is because the concept it represents is so useful. Even-temperedness, unconscious superiority, effortlessness, indifference to the judgments of others—all the things that teenagers in particular long for so earnestly and (generally) find so difficult to attain are what defines “cool”.

The adolescent within us is always concerned with what is “cool”. As adults we may label it slightly differently (“This character has a richness, charm, and depth that both instantly engages the reader and enables the writer to convey subtle but cogent satire” is really just critic-speak for “I like this character; he’s cool.”), but we are still often concerned with what is cool.

For example…. the essential conflict between Batman fans and Superman fans? It’s not “human” versus “superhuman”. It’s about coolness; Batman is “cool”; Superman is not “cool” (as some people define it).

Batman inspires fear and awe.

As does Superman... in his own way.

At least, that’s the traditional view of the characters. If you consider them as people, however, it’s easy to make the opposite case. Batman is less cool than Superman, as a person, because Batman strives to impress others and Superman does not. Such is the quixotic difficulty of pinning down what is “cool”.

But, as in the riddle above, one thing that is generally agreed upon is that “being cool” can never be the result of a conscious effort to “be cool”. The same can be said of any “cool” substitute, such as “edgy”,“bizarre”, or “outre”. We all know people who try to be “cool” and therefore are not. So, too, there are those striving desperately to be unique, or eccentric. The person striving to be “cool” is seeking admiration or popularity among his peers; the person striving to be “unusual” is seeking individuation from his peers. But the idea is the same.

Which leads me to my real point: Why So Many Modern Villains Suck. They suck because the writers are striving too hard to make them cool or unusual. They don’t happen to be eccentric, which lends them interest; their purpose is to be eccentric, which is not really interesting at all.

Take yer classic villains from Batman’s rogues gallery (or even Flash’s or Superman’s). Are they bizarre and eccentric? Of course. But that’s HOW they do things, now WHAT they do. WHAT they do is being professional criminals: in short, they steal things and kill people as part of the process. They are trying to be successful criminals, they aren’t trying to be bizarre; they simple ARE bizarre.

“Professor Pyg”? “The Dollmaker”? Mr Szasz? Deathstroke? Bane? Doomsday? Sorry, modern writers; you are obviously trying too hard to create characters whose very purpose is to be bizarre or bad-ass. As in the Batman/Superman example above, I make the distinction between the purpose of the character and the purpose of the “person”. Because, sure, when a writer creates a villain, he wants him to be a credible threat and be unique in some way. Nothing wrong with that, I’m not saying there is. But when being bizarre seems to be the only purpose of the “person” the character is… well, that’s just some writer trying too hard to cool. And failing.

Ask yourself which of those the Joker currently is the next time a writer uses him…