Kryptonite

(spoiler notice)
What is one thing that can consistently damage a movie?

Answer: put a kid in it.

I really enjoyed Superman.  I really did.  And I even liked the kid.  But when they made Superman the father, I was pissed.  The ramifications can ruin Superman.  (SB and I discussed this, and we’re of the same opinion.  The same sorts of things bug us, such as Gordon driving the Batmobile *weary sigh* )

The most obvious issue with a baby conceived by Lois and Superman is biological.  I’m fairly sure I don’t need to go further than… they are entirely different species.

Let us now address story consequences.  Superman is a messianic figure, a fictional ideal.  To make him a father is to make him sexually active.  To reproduce is human, but the point of an ideal is to be more than human, above human.  Being a father knocks him down to human level.

Ok, so now that he is a father, what does that mean?  Well, it means that he has two choices.  1) Superman must dedicate his life to his son rather than saving the world.  2) Superman is an absentee father.  Neither a good option.  And if you go with the first option, then Superman breaks up Lois’s engagement to Richard, and Superman becomes a homewrecker.

So why can’t Lois have just went on with her life during Superman’s 5-year absence?  Why can’t she have had a baby with her fiancé?  Why can’t Superman remain a paragon?  And why can’t James Marsden get a role where the woman with whom he has a relationship actually wants him?

Don’t get me wrong.  I enjoyed the movie very much.  It just had one flaw.  The casting was very good.  The energy, mood, spirit of it was just right.  I recommend that you all see it.

7 Comments

  1. steelbuddha says:

    Yes, that’s it exactly. I would have rambled.

  2. Loricious says:

    Heh heh, so true about James Mardsen. Poor chap.

    Just because they are different species doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t work. John and Aeryn got off just dandy. 😉

    And come on, Lex’s reaction to hearing about the piano getting thrown was worth it, if only in my opinion. 😀

  3. steelbuddha says:

    John and Aeryn were of compatible biological natures. Not to sounds too Mallrats, but how did the kid not kick right through Lois’ stomach? But that argument is moot. This is not science.

    What’s more important is how it ruins the character of Superman, as Clare noted above.

    The movie was a lot of fun, though.

  4. Loricious says:

    All good points. Meh! 🙂

  5. What does “meh” actually mean? I think I interpret it much differently than our friends intend. The definitions in the Urban Dictionary range from “whatever” to “shut up, bitch.” I interpret “meh” as negative indifference (if there is such a thing), as in “I give up. I don’t care anymore. It’s not like what I say matters to you.” But if it just means “whatever”, it can’t be used in as part of a debate because there should be no debate if you have no opinion of what is being said. It can’t be typed, because “meh” is all about body language and expression. We should ban it from written form, ‘cuz it just makes me uncomfortable since it’s always sounds either snide or resigning with a hint of bitter.

  6. Loricious says:

    Meh: onomotopia. If the spelling is right.

    When I write ‘meh’, its to mimic the sound that I’d make with a gesture, say a shrugging of the shoulders. It is a sort of apathetic noise, an audible expression of indifference or resignation, I suppose. A grunt of sorts that says “alright! we’re done with that, good chap. *lip smackin’* now what’s for dinner?”

    I just read your post, Rags, and I vow to make sure that my written version of “meh” will be banned when commenting on your site. So it is said, so it shall be done. 🙂

  7. steelbuddha says:

    I think you’re thinking of “eh,” Lor, which is different. I mean a person can say “My version of the word ‘man’ means a slimy residue on dog turds,” and while some people might agree with the metaphor, we all have to choose to use the same words for the same purpose or language falls completely apart. See: LOL not really referring to someone laughing out loud. =P

Leave a Reply