Superman Returns (2006) and the Comics

[Silver Nemesis]

Great jobs as always Silver and Colorsblend. Somehow this thread initially got by me so I'm just now checking it out.

Returns is a film that I've always loved. It's sad that it didn't resonate more with people like it did for me. It's my second favorite Superman film.

I'm glad you liked it, BatmanFurst. People don't discuss this movie much these days, but I know it still has its fans.

Was flipping through a trade paperback and found this.



It sort of reminded me of this bit from SR.





Sorry, couldn't find a screenshot of Superman zipping past the window.

Anyway. Bryan Singer and other crew members all mentioned "the Return of Superman" (e.g., Reign Of The Supermen) as an influence on the film in some documentary or another.

Good find, colors. The Superman Returns production team were definitely familiar with the Reign of the Supermen arc, having spent years grappling with it during the making of Superman Lives, so I could believe this was a deliberate reference.

[Silver Nemesis]

[thecolorsblend]

Good find, SN.

Separately... you know, for a movie that I make no secret of disliking, I sure seem to notice possible comic book inspirations a lot. Hmm.

Anyway, today's contestant is John Byrne's The Man Of Steel #01 cover dated October 1986.

Page 23


Page 25


Page 26-27


Again, that's somewhat reminiscent of the airplane rescue sequence in Superman Returns. But is it? Maybe it's just a coincidence?

Draw your own conclusions.

As a completely meaningless aside, in the process of fact-checking myself, I discovered that Frank Miller's The Dark Knight #04 and Alan Moore's Action Comics #583 and Superman #423 (which form the Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow? storyline that concluded the Pre-Crisis Superman canon) along with Moore's Swamp Thing #52 and Watchmen #01 were all on the newsstand in the same (cover date) month, September 1986.

That's some pretty serious firepower coming out from one comic book publisher all in the same month.

[Silver Nemesis]

It's become a cliché at this point that the first time Lois sees Clark in the Superman suit is during a rescue involving aircraft. I suppose you could trace it back to the helicopter sequence in Superman: The Movie. Then you get Byrne's version of the scene. Lois meets Superman for the first time after he saves the space shuttle in the L&C 'Pilot'. Bosworth's Lois is first reunited with Routh's Superman after he saves the space shuttle in SR. Geoff Johns and Gary Frank remade the Superman: The Movie helicopter sequence in Secret Origin. Lois sees Clark in his costume for the first time after he saves Air Force One in the Smallville 'Finale'. And so on.

As a completely meaningless aside, in the process of fact-checking myself, I discovered that Frank Miller's The Dark Knight #04 and Alan Moore's Action Comics #583 and Superman #423 (which form the Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow? storyline that concluded the Pre-Crisis Superman canon) along with Moore's Swamp Thing #52 and Watchmen #01 were all on the newsstand in the same (cover date) month, September 1986.

That's some pretty serious firepower coming out from one comic book publisher all in the same month.

Contrast that era with the current state of DC, or the American comic industry in general. How many of today's comics will be revered as classics in the decades to come?

[thecolorsblend]

Alright, so I'll just own it. Evidently, I have a bee in my bonnet when it comes to Superman Returns. But because I'm a comic book fan first, naturally, I have to find a way to relate everything to comics.

Now, what I want to say here is kind of the opposite of what this thread is supposed to be all about. We're supposed to talk about how the comics influenced the film. But my post here is more about how the film influenced the comics. Specifically, how the comics reacted to the existence of Superman Returns. And it doesn't paint a very rosy picture.

But first, for the sake of context, I need to reiterate that in 1986, John Byrne gave Superman the first real starting point the character had ever been given. I mean, yes, in theory, Superman debuted in Action Comics #01 back in June 1938 and his adventures were chronicled on a monthly basis from then until 1986.

But were they? Because from 1938 to 1986, there were innumerable retcons. So many retcons, in fact, that it's fair to question when Action Comics #01 stopped being canon for the character. The latest anybody seems willing to say is 1958. But frankly, I would argue it was MUCH earlier than that. Possibly as early the mid-Forties.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is that Byrne gave Superman a scorched Earth, page 01, comprehensive reboot. Everything you need to know about the Post-Crisis Superman begins with Man Of Steel #01. No need to consult anything prior to then. And that was the state of affairs for many years.

But then Infinite Crisis happened in 2006. And in the aftermath of Infinite Crisis, right off the bat, it became clear that Superman's history had been massively retconned AGAIN.

And obviously, that's not the only significant Superman thing that happened in 2006. Because that's when Superman Returns was released.

As a linewide thing, all of DC's major titles jumped a year forward. That allowed the various creative teams to do their own spin on the One Year Later concept.

The Superman titles were certainly no exception to the One Year Later bit of business. But reading those comics in 2006, and certainly in the aftermath of Superman Returns, it became pretty apparent to me that I wasn't the only one dissatisfied with the direction the film ultimately took.

Because reading Up, Up & Away, the Superman titles' tie-in with One Year Later, I couldn't shake the suspicion that someone from DC Comics despised the concept of Superman Returns just as much as I did. In fact, it's hard to not read Up, Up & Away as a critique of Superman Returns.

First, there's the concept of the story itself. Superman has been missing. Involuntarily for one year in the comics; voluntarily for five years in SR.

Clark experiments with his powers, particularly leaping. In the comics, his powers are gradually returning; in SR, young Clark discovers it in a flashback. Neither experiment is completely successful.

Superman #652, pg. 03

Superman's return to active duty is a big triumphal moment in both Up, Up & Away and SR.

In an attempt to mount a "comeback", Lex Luthor gets his hands on Kryptonian technology. Specifically, crystals. This is true for both Up, Up & Away and SR.

Using those crystals, Lex menaces Metropolis. But his REAL goal is defeating Superman once and for all.

The parallels seem pretty obvious to me. And considering that Up, Up & Away was cowritten by Geoff Johns, a protegé of Richard Donner, it only stands to reason that he would have a perspective on SR. Probably a not very favorable one, I should imagine.

So, there are similarities at times. Almost as tho the writer is trying to say, "No, you idiot, THIS is how you do it!"

But the differences in tone and attitude also seem like an indictment. Superman #650 kicks off with Lois and (powerless) Clark watching a fictionalized bio film about Superman. Clark playfully comments that the movie's tone is affectionate toward Superman for his absence rather than criticizing him for abandoning the world.

Superman #650, pg. 05

You know, a very different philosophy from that shown in SR, where Lois is shown winning a Pulitzer for writing a column titled "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman".

Gosh, if I didn't know better, I just might think Geoff Johns was trying to make a point there.

Now, I can't prove any of this. Everything I've written here is total speculation on my part. But consider. It's a no-brainer that DC's management would've had some sort of awareness of what Singer was planning to do with the film. Perhaps not an involvement with the film so much as an insight behind the scenes of where the film was ultimately going to go.

This isn't science-fiction. Al Gough and Miles Millar have repeatedly mentioned the number of times they had conversations with Paul Levitz and his remarks about Smallville. Christopher Nolan has likewise gone on the record about meeting with/talking to Jenette Kahn.

It takes exactly zero imagination to think that Singer would've also had interactions with DC's upper management. And from there, it's just a hop, skip and a jump to word of SR's creative decisions filtering back to Geoff Johns.

Or perhaps Geoff Johns heard everything from Lauren Shuler Donner, Singer's own producer and Donner's wife.

Whatever the case, I firmly believe that Up, Up & Away was intended at least partially to be a commentary on SR.

[thecolorsblend]

Another SR reference in Up, Up & Away. Superman's powers are not only returning, but he seems to be more powerful than he was before. And he needs to take a minute to adjust to his new (increased) limits.







This moment is reminiscent of a scene from SR where Routh spies on Lois without her knowledge and then flies high up to listen for emergency situations that might require his attention.

In UUAA, you get the idea that Superman is several thousand feet above ground level whereas in SR, it looks more like he's tens of thousands of feet in the air.

Again, it like someone from DC is using the comics to lecture Bryan Singer on how this type of storyline ought to be done.

[Silver Nemesis]

This is a very strange coincidence. I'm literally smack in the middle of re-reading Up, Up and Away right now, and then you go and post about it. Perhaps the filming of the new Superman movie subconsciously prompted us both to revisit that storyline. In any event, it's one helluva coincidence.

But to your point about it being Johns' reaction to Singer's film, I think that's almost certainly true. The similarities you listed, combined with the close proximity in which the film and comic were released, suggest an intentional overlap.

One major plot point from Singer's film that's absent from Up, Up and Away is the storyline about Superman becoming a dad. However, Johns went and wrote his own exploration of that premise in his very next storyline – Last Son (starting in December 2006, just a few weeks after the Superman II Donner Cut and SR were released on DVD).

The child in Last Son turns out to be the son of Zod and Ursa, but throughout most of the story the reader doesn't know that. As in SR, the boy has superhuman powers and Superman has to assume the responsibility of being a father to him while Lois serves a maternal role. I remember seeing online speculation at the time that Last Son was Johns and Donner reacting to the Jason subplot in SR, and in that regard it can be seen as a continuation of what Johns was doing in Up, Up and Away.

Some also think that Adam Kubert modelled his Clark Kent on Brandon Routh's version.

Other similarities between SR and Last Son include the villains damaging Metropolis using sunstone crystals.

The villains infiltrating the Fortress of Solitude and conversing with Jor-El (considering Donner co-wrote this, it's more likely a nod to Superman II).

And a scene where The Daily Planet globe falls from the roof and almost crushes one of Superman's allies. In this case, Lois.

In the comic it's Christopher, the super-powered child, who catches the globe.

This also recalls the scene where Jason uses his super strength to save Lois in SR.

So I think Johns was definitely doing his version of SR with these two storylines, and that makes me wonder if his subsequent Brainiac arc was him pre-empting Singer's use of the character in his sequel movie. Looking back on these stories in 2024, I'd say Johns' comics hold up a lot better than Singer's film does.

[thecolorsblend]

Yes, Last Son. That sort of reinforces my view that UUAA is a reaction to SR.

And aside from the fact that Superman has a surrogate son in LS, it's generally known that Bad Hat Harry Productions protected the spoiler about Jason being Superman's son from EVERYONE. Apparently, it was only confirmed to a handful of upper level WB execs. Other than that, only Singer, his cowriters, Routh and possibly Bosworth knew the secret.

That policy heavily impacted the SR comic book and novel adaptations. Neither of which include the plot point concerning Jason's paternity. THAT is how closely guarded the secret was.

So, it makes sense that Johns probably never knew about the Jason part of the story until he saw the film in theaters. And only then would he have realized his critique of the film in UUAA was incomplete. Which, I'm convinced, was part of the impetus behind creating the Last Son storyline in the first place.

As a personal preference, I will pretty much ALWAYS disagree with giving superhero characters biological offspring. That's the main reason why the Last Son storyline works for me. Chris can get whisked away to the Phantom Zone at the end of the story without Superman and Lois literally losing their literal child and grappling with the literal consequences of that. It would play very differently if Jason suffered the same fate. It would be very hard for a writer to believably move Lois and Superman beyond that so that they can go back to having wacky adventures in Metropolis.

So, yes, Johns definitely made the right call by positioning Chris as a surrogate child rather than a biological child of Superman and Lois.