|
Superman Lives? (Maybe Not)
by Michael Hutchison Photomanipulations by Chad Sanborn
For over half a year, the Internet has been abuzz with rumors of the latest developments in Superman Lives, the movie which is supposed to launch a new Superman franchise. Based loosely on the "Death of Superman" storyline which ran in the Superman titles half a decade ago, it has undergone numerous changes in casting, storyline and the script. Fans were at first excited to hear that renowned writer, director and comic book fan Kevin Smith (of Clerks, Mallrats and Chasing Amy) had been signed as the writer and director. His script made it to the Internet, and WOW, it's filled with comic book fanboy references! Yay! Then he was dropped from both (I'm uncertain as to which spot he lost first) and Batman movie alum Tim Burton was brought in to work his magic again. And then the casting started. Nicolas Cage as Superman? Chris Rock as Jimmy Olsen? Are they kidding? Let's not forget the ridiculous rumors floating around, such as the buzz that the costume would be the electric blue costume which plagued -- I mean, appeared in -- the Superman books for the last year. Preposterous! A movie lasts FOREVER (or until the last print degrades) and there's no way they're making an immortal film centered around a widely-despised marketing gimmick. That's like making a Spiderman movie where he's a clone dressed in his all-black Secret Wars outfit. Shall we analyze some of the decisions made so far? Oh, let's!
The Script
DC fans were infuriated at the rejection of Kevin Smith's script. "Didn't they read it? It was fantastic!" the fanboys cried, "It had Batman in it! It had Deadshot, L-Ron, Brainiac, Luthor, the Eradicator and Doomsday! And the characterization between Lois and Clark was fabulous! It's about time that a comic book fan wrote a movie script. What were they thinking?" The answer is simple. Kevin's script was awful. I could certainly write a better script, and I'm betting most screenwriters could. I've read that script, which I've put on my server for anyone who'd like to check it out. I have to say, Warner Brothers made the right decision. The plot is a meandering mess which tries to do way too much in the time allotted (sound like a Batman movie or three to you?). Superman doesn't really DO anything, as Lois, Jimmy and the Eradicator do most of the work. The plot is contrived, complicated and in some places incomprehensible. Most of all, the majesty of Superman is missing. That's to be expected from Kevin Smith, whose characters rarely exemplify the grander aspects of humanity. I suppose we should be thankful that Superman wasn't spouting the F-word every two minutes or discussing the properties of his semen with Lois Lane. And on that topic, I did think that the dialogue indicating that he and Lois were having a casual sexual relationship was a little gratuitous, but it's normal by Hollywood's standards and tame by Kevin's standards. Superman has been around for sixty years, and in that time, he has had some incredible stories both in print and in the modern cartoon series. There are hundreds of good plots out there. Why is it that the people who've mastered the characterizations and told the best stories never write the scripts for the movies?
Casting
First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not one of those people who threw a hissy fit when Michael Keaton was selected to play Batman. Partly because I suspected that Keaton was a better actor than he was considered by the public, but mostly because the role involves being in a face-obscuring costume and not speaking much. The role of Superman is quite different. It involves having a firm jaw, dark hair, wide shoulders, a rather square face and a deep, commanding voice. Nicolas Cage doesn't possess any of these qualities. Even in Con Air, for which he "bulked up" and developed large muscles, Cage looks like a musclebound skinny guy. His voice is gravelly and quiet. His hair's the wrong color. Could Cage pull it off? Possibly. It's possible that he might, through rigorous training, speech lessons, body toning and a lot of makeup, be made to resemble Superman. But this is like those women who marry a neanderthal figuring they can change him. What's the point of casting someone entirely inappropriate when there are numerous actors who are just made for the role? Hey, glad you asked! There is at least one actor out there who would be a fantastic Superman. Bruce Campbell. Well, this is the problem the guy's had for ages. He has a huge following but mainstream success seems to constantly dodge him. I'm betting you've seen him in something. He was the main character in the Evil Dead movies (the third movie being Army of Darkness) who puts on a robotic glove and exclaims, "Groovy!" He's that guy in the first few minutes of Congo who picks up the eyeball, screams and dies. He was also the Surgeon General of Beverly Hills who gets to say the only funny line in Escape from L.A. ("My God! They're real!") and then die. You might have caught him as the lead in the underrated Fox series The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. (which could have ridden the coat-tails of Fox's other new Friday show, The X-Files, if it hadn't been canceled so soon). He's been in a few Disney made-for-TV movies, The Love Bug and Gold Rush. He was also in the movie McHale's Navy; he doesn't get any big-name credit, despite the fact that he gets all of the funny lines in the movie's trailer ("BIG way!"). He played the bookstore owner Ed Billik on Ellen and Bill Church, Jr., on Lois and Clark. He's just been digitized into "Pitfall Harry" for the latest Pitfall game. Oh, and did I mention that he plays Autolycus, the king of thieves on both of the syndicated blockbusters Xena, Warrior Princess and Hercules: The Legendary Journeys? Yeah! That guy! I finally see some heads nodding. Okay! So let's consider Bruce Campbell as Superman. He's both a talented physical comedian and a trained stage fighter. He keeps himself in shape and could easily bulk up if needed (no rubber muscles necessary). He's got "presence," that indefinable quality which allows actors to dominate any scene they're in. He's got a strong, commanding voice, but he can also be subdued and funny as Clark Kent. Most importantly, he's got the chin to be Superman. (Which, of course, necessitates casting Jay Leno as Jor-El) As for playing Superman's alter-ego Well, Chad took a picture of Bruce from The Hudsucker Proxy and added a pair of glasses. Does that not look like the quintessential Clark Kent? Of course it does. Christopher Reeve's casting as Superman is probably one of the last instances of Hollywood selecting a non-superstar for the lead in a major motion picture (well, okay, Aileen Quinn in Annie, I'll grant you that one). In my opinion, the need to cast a big-name star is given too much emphasis especially when the star may not do as good a job as a lesser-known but more suitable actor. I can understand that priority in instances where the actor's name is the only thing going for a picture. However, in cases of licensed properties which have a following of their own, more attention should be paid to doing a proper adaptation. And if the moviemakers don't care about creating a quality, timeless product, then consider that you could pay Bruce Campbell more money than he's ever made before and it would still be only a fraction of Nicolas Cage's asking price!
Directing Kevin Smith, despite his love for Superman comics, has never had any experience at directing a big-budget action movie. Tim Burton has had numerous successes in many genres and is a highly artistic director, but his dark style seems strangely inappropriate to the bright, shiny world of Superman. Let's go through a few alternatives: Brian De Palma has been a master of character-driven, intelligent action films such as Mission Impossible and The Untouchables (both of which were licensed properties, I might add!). I don't know if he could be lured to such a project, but he would turn in an excellent film. Should Mel Gibson wish to direct a movie in which he didn't star, I'd say, "Hire him!" After all, Braveheart had passion, nobility and action. Heck, if he insisted on being in the movie, he could appear as Captain Boomerang. Actually, there's a director whose style is perfect for adapting a comic book. A director who has mastered action films and stylish camera tricks. And, he'd be much more affordable than these other directors. I hesitate to mention his name, however, because he's best buddies with my choice for Superman and I don't want to appear too narrow-focused. That's right. Sam Raimi. Director of Darkman, The Quick and the Dead and Evil Dead. I've watched his movies numerous times and have marveled at the almost comic-book style of his storytelling. The Quick and the Dead has a selective panel-by-panel feel. Most of his shots are artistic static shots, rarely employing panning or dollying. And, of course, Darkman proved he can handle the scope of a superhero film. Hmmm. Raimi and Campbell, making a Superman film together. When your movie appeals to two separate groups of rabid fans, there's gotta be some marketing potential! Superman Lives, which was once planned as Warner Brothers' big movie of 1998, is now slated for July 3 of 1999. Marvel Comics has several movie projects (including Chris Columbus' Fantastic Four) which may actually be good enough to notgo straight to video, in which case there's a danger of over-comicking theatres. And let's not forget the new Star Wars Episode 1 which will be vacuuming the wallets of Generation Xers everywhere. Never fear. At the rate it's going, Superman Lives will debut around the same time as our new president. More scripts have been rejected and it is still in pre-production. Kevin Smith's script is being reconsidered. And, of course, Nicolas Cage can't keep his schedule open forever. So
Bruce! Let's get your old pal Sam Raimi's people talking with your people and WB's people! And if you're stuck without a script, call my people! (Note to self: "Find people")
|