It's a bird! It's a plane! It's... JESUS!

[thehefner]

It's apparently official, according to comics scribe and Superman-movie-spy Mark Millar. Jim Caviezel is the next Superman.

Makes sense really. Superman is very much a Christ figure. I won't make an ass of myself by tying together all the comparisons (I'm sure we'll be seeing plenty of essays in the future on the matter), but it works. But more important is the question of how *good* is Caviezel for the role?

Personally, I really liked Passion, but that's a whole other matter and, let's face it, it wasn't really an actor's movie per se. No, the two Jim Caviezel movies that come to mind are "Count of Monte Cristo" and "Frequency." The former I only saw the second half of, but he was pretty good and intense there. The latter movie, however, I did see, and it's one of those touching, wonderful little-known flicks that are a little schmaltzy but very good. If that's any indication, I think Jim'll be a fine choice for Big Blue.Still, I kind of would have liked Tom Welling. I know, his acting skills are somewhat suspect, but in so many ways he just captures Clark, and I would have liked to have seen how he would have handled Superman.

Millar mentioned how we can now do so much more with the technology today that we didn't have 30 year ago to finally introduce some of the more... difficult aspects. Let's face it, Supes' rogues gallery is kind of weak. I mean, I love Bizarro and Mr. Mxyzptlk, but they're more comic relief than real threats. You have Lex Luthor, perhaps the greatest villain in all of comics (don't get your feathers ruffled, Dave. The Joker's also the greatest villain, but in a very different way.) But beyond Luthor, who does Supes have? One word: Brainiac. Awww yeah, now that's an evil robot mastermind villain. Maybe we'll see the Bottle City of Kandor yet.

Comments

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Superman is very much a Christ figure.

I don't follow that. The critical thing about a Christ figure is that it has to die to redeem you. Maybe I haven't followed the book lately enough, but I thought the point of Superman is that he doesn't die. He's stronger than you, he's faster than you, he flies, he can see through walls.

You have to kill him off every so often just to imply that well, maybe there's some possibility of suspense in the story ("maybe he'll die for a while this time"), but it doesn't last.

[dame-ratcliffe.livejournal.com]

I was rooting for Tom too...but then it really would have been an extension of the show and I doubt they want that connection. That and it seems they were looking for someone a little older. 9/22 baby...want to skip out on school and have a smallville party???

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

No, he actually did die, remember? Not to mention was ressurected. And there have been several "alternative or otherwise possible" universe stories where he does in fact die (and it's easier to kill Superman than you might think, at least the current superman).

I need to get in touch with a friend of mine who ran through all the Christ/Superman parallels, since I can't remember them well enough on my own.

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

He did die, but that strikes me as a very different Superman from Shuster & Siegel's Superman, or Christopher Reeve's Superman.

I'm not surprised, with all the writers over the years, that a Superman has been a Christ figure. But Christ makes a lousy character for a continuing story like a comic book: his story has a very important ending.

David Gerrold points out that there's a crucial difference between episodic media (like a TV series) and a movie or play. In a movie, you're seeing the most important/interesting event in a character's life. In a TV series, or comic book, you must not see the most important event in a character's life, or everything after that is anticlimax.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

If I don't have a rehearsal that night, that might be very cool!