The Nature of Superman's Powers and his Control of Them

This post derives from a question on the imdb boards, and it also relates to Superman’s powers as they are manifested in the world around him. More specifically, I want to briefly examine the everyday physics of Superman.

The question regards the extent of Superman’s powers and the degree to which he has control over them. In some iterations of the character, Superman is always walking on egg-shells; he always has restrain and focus his powers to ensure that he doesn’t harm the people around him or destroy personal property, let alone call unwanted attention to himself. I understand this logic in the narratives it appears in, but I don’t like the types of Superman it allows for. That is, I don’t think Superman should be a character who is always holding back; it just isn’t very exciting. It means that he is a negative character (in the denotative sense) because he has to negate his full spectrum of abilities rather than exert himself. Restraint just isn’t that exciting. It's more intense and dramatic if he has to fully exert himself and really try (in a positive sense).

I would propose that Superman, ideally, has basically normal, human interactions with physics and the material world. What this would mean is that he would not have to TRY to hold himself back most of the time. He would not have to try to walk at a normal speed rather than “walking” at 60 mph, he would not have to try to not crush people when he shakes their hands, etc. Instead, all his powers are “extra-human” capacities that he can use whenever he needs to, but they do not define his everyday interactions. I think his positivistic powers (such as flight, super-strength, heat vision) should be like a muscle, he can use them when he wants to, but they are not “working” when he is in a relaxed state. This system would work best, of course, in the type of world I have previously articulated where his powers are generally toned down (he can lift a house or a tank with some effort, but can’t toss around planets).

This way, he would have to occasionally demonstrate some restraint of his powers during the course of a day, but he wouldn't always have to consciously, proactively focus - - every single second - - on not breaking or destroying things while doing simple, everyday tasks. In turn, I think this would allow him to be a more confident, engaged Clark Kent at the Daily Planet in that he doesn't have to worry (as much) about being competent at his job and therefore being noticed in and around the office a lot because he is not constantly masking his abilities. He is just not using his powers.

What does “relatable” mean with regard to Superman’s powers?

        

       Throughout and since principle photography of Man of Steel, both Zack Snyder and Henry Cavill have emphasized that their Superman will be more relatable. Based on what we have seen from the teaser and trailer, it seems that the filmmakers are attempting to make Superman more relatable primarily at an emotional level where the character is concerned. I am personally in favor of this (as long as they don’t overplay their hand). Who hasn’t felt lonely growing up? And who hasn’t struggled, on some level, to find their place in the world? I think one of the great parts of Superman is that in spite of his array of powers, he is heroic in a very human way; many of us are skeptical about humanity and cynical about the societies we have created, but it’s still worth dedicating ourselves to helping make them better. But these issues aside, what does this move toward making the hero relatable entail for Superman’s power levels?

        As many Superman fans are well aware, one of the dominant criticisms of the character is that he is too powerful. The result, these critics attest, is that Superman’s stories ultimately lack drama or suspense. Even David Goyer, in his introduction to Superman: Secret Origin, conceded that writing stories about such a capacious hero can be challenging (for those who don’t know, Goyer was instrumental to the story of Man of Steel). I have personally never completely bought this line of reasoning for a few reasons. First, Superman’s enemies are immensely powerful, and when he throws down with Brainiac, Metallo, Zod, or dozens of others, Superman’s powers amplify rather than detract from the conflict. Second, even where powerful villains are not in play, there are many complicating scenarios or trying circumstances that can test Superman in a variety of ways. Moreover, there are a series of interesting intellectual questions about the proper role of Superman acting in society predicated on his being powerful.

        But the more I thought about the matter, I now feel that even though the “too powerful” argument is mostly bunk, it does have some validity. The sheer number of kryptonite stories in the Superman mythos bears this out: writers have always tried ways to make Superman vulnerable as a means of instilling suspense into the story being told and to complicate matters, if just a little while, for the Man of Steel. Smallville made such tricks the bread and butter of their ten year run. But rather than contriving things to take away Superman’s abilities, could he be powered down a little instead? As I would like to propose, I think Superman should be (moderately) powered down in Man of Steel because it makes everything he does cool and dramatic.

        What I mean by this is that Superman being too powerful has sapped some of the wow factor from the many cool things that he does and can do. If Superman is infinitely powerful, there would be no chase sequences or any other type of scene where he has to race against time – if he can move at the speed of light, he would basically just appear in space. The result is that his moving through space at incredible velocity is deprived of all its wonder. The physicality and excitement of the feat is greatly diminished. Imagine if Superman could fly fast, say 12,000 mph at top speed, but would really have to push himself to do so. He would still be faster than the fastest of jet aircraft, but he would have to accelerate up to that level, during which he is roaring through the skyscape.  I think something like this would keep Superman incredibly powerful, but it would cap him in a way that ensures that he will need to really try and exert himself. Similarly, imagine if Superman had to really exert himself to lift things the size of a house. Imagine if he could take a tank shell to the chest, but had to really brace himself for it. The more I think about it, I really like what Grant Morrison did with Superman in the new 52 Action Comics; in that series, Superman is still immensely powerful, but he really has to wrangle with and against the material objects of his world to emphasize his strength and physicality. It’s cool, and it’s dramatic. And it makes new the basic tasks and abilities that we have sort of taken for granted for so long.

        

Why Zod is a great choice for a villain

Over the last few months there has been some debate as to whether or not General Zod is the best choice for Superman’s main antagonist in the upcoming film Man of Steel. It is worth noting, however, that director Zack Snyder has been coy about confirming that Zod is in fact the film’s main villain. And several weeks ago the toy-line for the film revealed that Black Zero may be a villain in the film as well. Still, all the evidence seems to be indicating that Zod will be Superman’s primary foe, including a quick shot of Michael Shannon in the most recent trailer.

Many have bemoaned the fact that some of Superman’s primary villains from the comics, several of whom have not yet appeared in a live-action film, are not likely be featured in Snyder’s movie. I too am eager to see figures like Brainiac, Metallo, and even Doomsday or Darkseid in future Superman films. But I think Zod is an ideal villain for the reboot. Here is my reasoning:

1.)  Zod is intimately tied to Superman’s origin. A reboot entails an origin story, and Zod’s story is likely to be interlaced with Krypton’s destruction and perhaps even Jor-El’s demise. As a result, Zod will be able to inform Clark’s nascent identity as Superman. If he is not an outright ‘mentor’ to Superman, he is someone who will crystalize the difference between Superman’s astral heritage and his adopted earth culture. For a movie that seems so interested in Clark figuring out who he is, this is huge! On a more practical level, origin movies have a lot of information to convey quickly and it can be hard to have a compelling, complicated villain when so much of the story is dedicated to explaining the hero (for instance, Lex Luthor in Superman: The Movie). Zod being tied so closely to the origin allows for him to be characterized parallel to Superman’s story.

2.)   Particularly for a film that is (by all indicators) going to pit Superman against the US military, for at least a little while, Zod is an ideal choice. When the military acts against Superman, Zod is an ideal person to complicate matters by making the matter a humans vs. aliens thing, a dichotomy Clark will have to transcend. And the urgency of Zod’s feeling against aggressors will make a lot of sense, as he is a military man himself and witnessed the near total extinction of his own people. Put simply: Zod not only promises to be a bad-ass villain, but one whose motivations are plausible.

3.)  Zod is a great bridge villain for a series of films in that his involvement in the story is not necessarily going to be contained and finished in a single movie. Just like Ras-Al-Ghul and the League of Shadows bridged together - - across several films - - villains like Scarecrow, Talia, Bane, and even, indirectly, Catwoman, Zod can do something similar for Superman. Depending on how the film manages the destruction of Krypton, Zod’s storyline could indirectly involve Brainiac, the Eradicator, and Black Zero, among many others. In my view, one of the strengths of Nolan’s trilogy was that the story felt like a coherent whole – it was not a disjointed series of episodes pitting Batman against a litany of random villains one at a time. Similarly, Zod’s storyline contains within itself the beginnings of a much bigger arc of villains.

4.) Finally, Zod is a character ripe for re-imagining. True, Terrence Stamp’s colorful and charismatic portrayal of the character in Superman II is still a lot of fun to watch. But true to the generally campy tone of the film, Zod in Lester’s story (and even Donner’s slightly more serious version) is a theatrical, one-dimensional stock villain bent on world domination. Zod has the potential to be a far more complicated and sinister character. The casting of the excellent, steely and physically imposing (6’3”) Michael Shannon to this end is very promising. Moreover, Zod in an armored suit fighting against Superman with the effects available in 2012 promises to be nothing short of visually arresting. 

What "Man of Steel" needs to get right

I am a huge Superman fan and have generally loved all the previous Superman films, including the less than stellar Superman Returns.

Since Man of Steel is rebooting the franchise and reiterating the origin, it is my sincere hope that this film deals with an aspect of Superman that has never before been dealt with: the crux of the character lies in the choice to become Superman. It is not an obvious or predestined choice. Too often, Clark’s “destiny” is treated like something that is clear and distinct; it is a problematic telos where the story is concerned. Superman’s heroism derives first and foremost from the fact that he chooses to believe in and protect a people that are not his own. He sacrifices his own happiness and well-being toward a society he knows is incredibly flawed. Moreover, he wouldn’t necessarily need to dress up in red and blue and be a hero and adopt an incredibly public persona to be a “good person,” and yet he foregoes most of his self-interests and does so anyway. It is not an obvious choice.

Too often, the drama of this decision is glossed over. It would be cool if Man of Steel can get at the heart of why Superman is such a great hero. I'm encouraged so far, as the military-against-Superman line of storytelling should open Clark to having to think through and deal with the ramifications of being a public hero.