Review: Superman the Novelization of the movie

[Rugal 3:16]

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 ), 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.