Title: Review: Superman the Novelization of the movie Post by: Rugal 3:16 on October 12, 2004, 06:25:52 AM Review: Superman the Novelization of the movie
I downloaded this from Superman-themovie.com (Bear with me I tend to overanalyze at times) As all novelizations go, this is of course a more ellaborate presentation of the entire story with advantages of more subjective characterization. There are differences as well that fits the context of a novel The Story: The Basics, Krypton goes boom & they sent their last son way, a basic origin that we take for granted right beside reading "once upon a time, in a land far away" as childhood fiction, the movie makes this scene look like something deserving of its ultimate fate (thus where post-crisis Krypton was based on rather than the older flash-gordon, buck-rogers type architecture & society) & has Jor- El & Lara aside from saving their son, make it seem like he's a legacy that will survive, this interpretation takes it at least a step further as everything is laid out in Jor-El\s presepective, & like the movie, it starts out with Jor-El passing judgement (as a member of the council with an authority to execute as decreed to him) on General Zod & his teo Jabronis (couldn't resist :D ), but it integrates the scene in a more parallel nature when it was Jor-El's turn to be scourned by the Kryptonian Council (we figure anywhere that this planet has only one functioning government) as a blashpemist, with his scientific theory of Krypton's inevitable doom, I know Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster intended that scene with reference/inspiration from the Book of Exodus where Noah was being a laughing stock because of his arc and his belief that the world would be flooded, and the subtext here rubs that in your face even more concrete than it needs to be, but stll turned out for the better. The Kents are portrayed like their pre-crisis selves (which again is understandable since the first movie came outlong before DC's 'Crisis on Infinite Earths' which rebooted their characters & histories [some, like superman with MANY modifications]), loving people who properly molds their adopted son into using his powers for the greater good. having been found Kal-El and took him as a child sent to them by the heavens almost as much as Moses was sent away in a crib & was found found by Egyptian royalty (you can see a larger frame of reference than an insect-bite, or a book or conversation about the repercussions of failed responsibility and the such), the kents knew what had to be done once realizing his powers, and after a proper upbringing they died (or at least only Johnathan did in this story, though Superman 3 referenced Martha Kent to have passed not long after). This Clark although had some angst and some temptations of unvealing his powers was stronger than the more recent post-crisis history of the characterand the other mediums that was based on that (like Smallville Clark) he always knew what was right and the only closest to "breaking" he gets is when he utters "All these powers.. & I can't even save him" which brings a level of poetic tragedy to his being. Clark's grown-up character is again based on his earlier incarnation (meaning Superman's the "REAL" person, & Clark is the "Disguise" & not the other way around like it is today) his subjective thoughts here are nothing to behold for a 21st centure audience, because it's simply straight-to-the point nobility (what Cynics love to call "Goody-2-shoes) but that's not only the appeal of supes, "21st century characterization" maybe just one igredient he may not be versed in (based on the time he was created and for what audience he was aimed [no not kids, it was the depression era]) but he makes up in other huge larger than life ways that can't really be said about say, someone who's entire storytelling machinery is "shackled" around just is rogues gallery or the supporting characters and how they evolve (IMO good for a finite piece of storytelling, ultimately bad for a long term unlimited media like comics eventually), which sadly this interpretation does not cover half of, and of course Christopher Reeve plays the character much more vivid than what is written here (there's just no comparison to seeing "wimpy" clark living and breathing). Lois of the movie balances out the hard-boiled, no nonsense reporter & the overgrown schoolgirl which still dreams about knights & armors & stuff, sadly the novelization maxes out the latter like a volume turned way up, we only get to read about 30% of the liberated pulitzer prize material woman, and of course the absence of "Can you read my mind" even just at least as a silent poetry or thought during the "Flight scene" (or anything just to be written here) hurts a lot since that was IMO Lois' primary spotlight scene. Lex Luthor is portrayed more evil and ruthless here than the evil but slightly comedic role that Gene Hackman played in the silver screen. Granted he still has the same confidants (the dumb ox, & the blonde bimbo, IT DOESN'T MATTER what their names are), He is dead serious and really takes pleasure in the misery of others and says "greatest criminal mind of our time" in the same overconfident but noticeably darker tone. The novelization depicts luthor bald all the time as opposed to the movie where he only removes his wig in the end. Other characters like Jimmy & Perry are carbon copies of their movie selves (well even in the movies there were not much to extrapolate on their characters in long detail). Even some characters that are not in the movie appear here like Inspector Henderson, oddly Pre-Crisis' Steve Lombard the news jock who was clark's tormentor (much like how Reggie is to Archie) and Post- Crisis' Maggie Sawyer, Captain of Metropolis' police district made appearances.. "whatsupwidthat???" Changes: Although the story plays out the same, tangible plot elements were altered somewhat. * Baby Kal-El saves Johnathan from being squashed by the rocket ship he was rocketed off in, instead of the Truck. *The Young lady in the movie who sees the teenage clark running alongside the locomotive is Lois in this interpretation (not a major plot point, just a tiny reference that affects nothing.. Oh & don't get me started on the age-inconsistency) *The hood who robs Lois & Clark during Clark's first day on the job on the Daily Planet is Luthor's dumb assistant here. The movie just had a random nobody. *The Cop following Luthor's goon was eaten by "Komodo Dragons" instead of being pushed into the subway train by a platform with machinations by Lex. *Superman goes through a wild goose chase first, before hearing the specific frequency luthor used to summon himand not immediately hearing it in the Daily Planet. *The Interview/flight scene: Later.. *Luthor explains his plans to superman using a tripod and a set of slides instead of using a room where the floor is decorated with the schematics. *Lois is in the case of trying to connect Lex Luthor with the person who has just bought a great amount of land near California, In the movie Lois is just investigating who was that mysterious buyer. *The climax: Later.. There are of course, inbetweener scenes that were not shown on the movie, like clark's reaction to when lois names him 'Superman' while buying the morning paper, Luthor being captured by Supes & the cops and such. Back to the Interview/Flight scene (Spoilers) The novel's dialogue here really diminishes lois' character into a little girl, instead of just being nervous but still being able to carry out the interview & then the flight later as the sequence goes. In the novelization, Lois has about two stuttered questions & a blank notepad for almost the rest of the evening and then theflight immediately follows (and even this one didn't have the 'finger slip' which made lois fall in the movie & supes caught her, although the peter pan dialogue was included the novel basically had lois putting her arms around clark the entire duration ofthe flight wihout those peter-pan inspired arms- stretched/spread positions) & ends with supes writing everything down on into lois' otherwise near-empty pad. I know all of those works for a novelized context but a minor detail overlooked is the "Truth Justice & American Way" line, the novel had lois read those 3 Virtues in the pad (written by supes as his "objective") and the only thing that follows is a "Better live up to it" kind of dialogue which is integral to the latter part in the novelization, but still they can always just palce that in the end and have the movie's version come into play. A friend of mine watched the movie in 1978 and In the movie when Lois is interviewing Superman and asks, "Why are you here?" He answers earnestly, "to fight for truth, justice and the American way." that line got laughs in the theater he was watching in. After all, it was 1978, and the audience had been through 'Nam and Watergate, and the campy Batman TV show, so this kind of sentiment seemed written to appeal to a cynical, ironic sense of humor. And yet, Christopher Reeve delivered it with such conviction that he came off not as a deluded doofus, but a genuine, old- fashioned nice guy optimist.Lois quips that if this is his mission, he's going to be at odds with every politician in Washington, and Superman answers not with a knowing wink, or a "Ha! I was just kidding" attitude, but with another earnest line: "I'm sure you don't really mean that, Lois." This shuts her up, and it got the audience quiet, too. This is the part where we figure out Superman's character. Here is a guy who really believes in the basic goodness not just of America, but of people in general. He's not embarassed to admit he believes it, and moreover, he knows that deep down, we believe it, too. Lois the hardened reporter has, like the rest of us, bought into the ethos of cynicism, which masquerades as sophistication but at its heart is a kind of deep-seated cowardice, a timidity that prevents us from changing things we convince ourselves are beyond changing. But somewhere inside, we still want to believe that people are basically good, and that things will eventually turn out well for humanity. All we need is someone to encourage us to do our part. And the fact that I brought this up and i'm not even a writer is kinda wierd when the person who novelized looked past that (well of course that person may not have seen it in 1978, probably a DVD) but the emphasis is basically on Lois being a drooling little fangirl, at least the writer should have focused more on the dialogue. And even after that he can insert that "Live up to it" part. Back to the climax part (Spoilers) This is an improvement for the movie, although based on the movie's perspective the outcome is understandable as a sort of self-relief that counters an inability of superman earlier in the movie's story that he 'fixes' here, namely turning back time to save Lois. The movie sets the climax to mirror supes' powerless-ness back to the day when Johnathan kent passed, an interesting similarity that's introspective of clark's is that he memorizes the sounds of various forms of life & there were once two basic patterns of heartbeats that he would always look for (his foster parents) and then one stopped (Johnathan's passing) and later he got accustomed to a new pattern, and Lois' heartbeat stopped (he's known it even when he was far away) he gets devastated, devastated so much that he moves back time to save her like in the movie.. or not really.. In this interpretation Jor-El warns him afterwards about this move being his first step to godhood, and he goes on a moral dillemna that he should treat everyone else as equals and as superman, he has no time for these emotions. Superman then again turns back time restoring it to what it was, and as he is once again beside the dead body of lois, it goes Deus Ex Machina over there (CPR and stuff) but overall this works better because everyone still ends up happily ever after, everyone except supes. As much as the movie’s ending halfway worked in it’s delivery (meaning Supes uses his powers to do what he failed to do when he was young) it ultimately betrays superman’s character, thus stating that he did take first steps into godhood, and it was selfish, the novel does it better. The part where Jimmy Teases Lois about Supes liking her was done while she was in the hospital bed, and not on the spot after supes fly away in the movie.. and the things she said stabbed at Kal- El's thoughts as one of the things that would always be painful to this invincible figure.. He is not one of us (especially in this setting where no other superheroes are around) and cannot risk choosing one over the rest (thus eliminating all pursuit of desire for any of the LL's that is.. and will be, Lois Lane, Lana, Lyla Lerrol, Lori Lemaris, saLLy seLLwyn, chloe suLLivan, and anyone else). A poetic irony that he belongs to the world and that Superman dhould be careful to keep a healthy emotional distance from the people in his life, which is why, for example, he never marries. Taking a wife would mean bringing her into a world where she was in danger constantly, not only from bad guys but also from Superman himself, in a moment of carelessness. Plus, most interpretations are led to believe he will still be alive when all his friends are long dead, so marrying a human woman isn't really fair to her. All these things reinforce the continuing theme in the Pre-Crisis books (and the movie) that being Superman is a lonely, lonely job. Loneliness is a sure-fire wet blanket on any dreams of contentment. Sure, he's got that Fortress as big as several mansions, but for Pete's sake look at the place. It's like a combination museum, bunker and tomb (and in the movie, it's even colorless). There's nothing warm or cozy in the whole place...just cold, hard Kryptonian machinery and maudlin reminders of a dead people. But even if it had been nicely decorated and full of TVs and pinball machines, it was still a Fortress of *Solitude," and solitude by its nature is not a fun concept. Anyway, out of all the people who have mansions, I'm willing to bet most of them aren't very happy. This climax hits the concept's nail to the head with regards to superman (as powerful as he is) capable of problems? Sure, they weren't our problems. He didn't have to worry about baldness, fat or bad teeth (not that the post-Crisis version does either), or stubbing his toe. No, all he had to worry about was keeping every man, woman and child on Earth out of danger, honoring the memory of his parents and their world, and so on. Big problems. But we still identify with him, because he is an outsider, a misfit. Everyone on Earth (except the baddies) love him, but no one really knows him. He can't really dump his problems on a friend the way you or I would. He looks like us, but he isn't one of us. He does not fit in. This is something young readers picked up on in the old days (certainly I did), and the cool thing was that his superhuman-ness was the very thing that humanizes him. Ironically this resolution would totally void any indication of a Superman 2 novelization, because the basic plot of 2 is him giving into this weakness.. so I think there better not be any (depends on the website, I’d like to see how they’ll pull that one out though). All in all Rating ***** (Perfect five stars) BTW credit goes to nightwing because I paraphrased some of his quotes because quite franly, there was no way to say an excellent paragraph any better. |