Alan Moore vs. Grant Morrison approach to Superman

[crazy_asian_man]

I know that this is the "Supes at the Cinema & on TV" part of the forum, but I think this relates, hear me out....

Recently just watched an amazing documentary on Grant Morrison & about the same time finally read the entirety of Grant Morrison's "All-Star Superman".

In the documentary, Grant apparently has a 180 degree view of how superheroes should be approached creatively from Alan Moore:

Alan Moore's approach has been to bring in 'realistic human problems' to the character. I thought that this was the strength of SR's approach. (Neverminding Luthor's portrayal, but don't wanna get into that here)

Morrison's approach has been more in NOT allowing the reality of the world seep into the comic book world, but having the comic book world expand instead, and have the reader's reality having to accept it, instead.

In 'Allstar Superman', the fantastic and silly can easily co-exist in Superman's world, never being questioned. If anything, whatever is ridiculous in the world is just part of the fun.

If Morrison's version had to be reduced to a single label: Superman as fun fantasy.

In Moore's comics with Superman- there are logical winks put into the absurdities. But there's always a dark human angle that gets brought up in most of his stories that let you know that the world of superheroes seen through Moore's eyes is tainted by painful reality and painful consequences for things that can't go away, if Superman and his supporting characters lived in this world.

If Moore's version had to be reduced to a single label: Superman as dark science fiction.

* Donner's version was never truly dark, but (admittedly) a bit schizophrenic. Even if he had completed SII, everything horrible that would have happened, was originally going to be undone by 'Superman magic'/time reversal. But there were some 'real' human issues that Clark/Superman faced when he chose to give up his humanity, and Jorel/Lara really die on Krypton.

So, Donner had a mix of both Dark (though not that dark) sci fi/ Fantasy.

* Lester's version is truly fantasy- but arguably it was SO light that nothing was taken seriously (I only count SIII as truly his version). Definitely a fantasy, but not much fun. If Lester had chosen 'real' elements in the Superman comics of the 50's/60's/70's- and gone for broke, (i.e. Legion, Mr. Mxptylyx (sp?), Krypto, the superdog)---

Possibly, Lester's idea of making the series pure fantasy could have been enjoyed by all. But, (and this is where I condemn him), Lester's agenda was coming up with his own 'comedy schtick' sequences that didn't have ANYTHING to do with Superman or Superman lore whatsoever.

Morrison's work is a lot of fun and laughable- but one laughs with the material, whereas Lester's SIII hurts because there are so many bits that simply don't relate to the character at all- in ANY fashion.

Anyhow-
SIV arguably tried to be taken seriously, but the budget and some truly bad choices (sorry Sidney Furie) undermined it- but it TRIED to be a 'dark science fiction' story.

SR, to me, is definitely (for most of it) an Alan Moore-like version to the Superman mythos while tying it to the Donner version.

But-
Here's what this rambling leads to:

What kind of version are you folks hungry for right now on film, if you really had a choice?

An Alan Moore approach/ Superman as dark science fiction
-or- the far more whimsical Morrison/Superman as pure fantasy approach (where any rules of reality can be broken)?

Thoughts?

[Valentine Smith]

Interesting.

All Star Superman is pretty much my favorite Superman comic in nearly 20 years, and I think is a top ten Superman story of all time. It gets better with every reading.

However, also in that "top ten" of Superman stories has to be Moore's "Whatever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow" and "For The Man Who Has Everything".

But y'know what? I don't want EITHER version on screen, necessarily. While I'm jazzed to see All Star getting the animated treatment, I know it's gonna be lacking. I think what makes both of those interpretations so good is that they can ONLY work in the confines of the comic book page.

Why? Because both are heavily dependent on the notion that Superman has thousands upon thousands of pages of absurd adventures behind him already, some of which you've read, some of which you haven't read. The implication is that EVERY Superman story you ever read is "true" when you pick those up, and that's what gives everything weight and allows you to accept what comes next for the character.

In other words, they're written for comic fans. Smart comic fans, mind you, but comic fans nonetheless.

I want a Superman MOVIE. I have 2 longboxes full of Superman comics already. That doesn't mean I want "realism", as I have stated repeatedly that Superman is a SCIENCE FICTION character and should be treated as such. But, I do think that the filmmakers have a responsibility to introduce Superman's universe to a non-comic reading audience.

[crazy_asian_man]

Interesting.

All Star Superman is pretty much my favorite Superman comic in nearly 20 years, and I think is a top ten Superman story of all time. It gets better with every reading.

However, also in that "top ten" of Superman stories has to be Moore's "Whatever Happened to The Man of Tomorrow" and "For The Man Who Has Everything".

But y'know what? I don't want EITHER version on screen, necessarily. While I'm jazzed to see All Star getting the animated treatment, I know it's gonna be lacking. I think what makes both of those interpretations so good is that they can ONLY work in the confines of the comic book page.

Why? Because both are heavily dependent on the notion that Superman has thousands upon thousands of pages of absurd adventures behind him already, some of which you've read, some of which you haven't read. The implication is that EVERY Superman story you ever read is "true" when you pick those up, and that's what gives everything weight and allows you to accept what comes next for the character.

In other words, they're written for comic fans. Smart comic fans, mind you, but comic fans nonetheless.

I want a Superman MOVIE. I have 2 longboxes full of Superman comics already. That doesn't mean I want "realism", as I have stated repeatedly that Superman is a SCIENCE FICTION character and should be treated as such. But, I do think that the filmmakers have a responsibility to introduce Superman's universe to a non-comic reading audience.

Good points, Val!

A couple of things:
#1: It's funny that both of one of the Moore stories ("For the Man who has Everything") and one of the MOrrison stories both were chosen for animated adaptation. (*Although I thought that they got the Moore one a bit wrong by the end of that adaptation. Still...neat to see)

As far as animation goes, I actually think that Superman (generally speaking) hasn't been pushed to its limits, given the (more or less) unlimited resources of animation. There have been stories and spots here and there, but to me, the JLU series so far has been the closest to 'hit the spot' in terms of designing stories that have the spirit and fun of some of the best of what the comics have to offer.

The Fleischer stuff in the 30's pushed animation, but the stories were a bit lackluster. They're classics, but pity that they couldn't include some of the more fantastic elements later in Superman comics- all the 'wacky' stuff that worked in comics when it was more geared towards kids- the fun crazy stuff: mermaids, time travel, bizzare transformations of Jimmy Olsen, etc. etc.

The 'fun crazy stuff' that Morrison happily dove into, I think would have been/would be perfect for animation....both for content for families and, if done right, appeal to the 7-year old in everyone.

For the live-action tv and film stuff:

The Moore stuff that bounces off of past Superman history- I get why that wouldn't have any interest to a non-Superman specific audience- but the tone of imposing real human issues and problems upon the mythical characters I was pointing to more (or meant to) in this post.

There was one critic who thought a Superman film that took itself deadly serious would be awful. I disagree. Even there is humor in it, I thought that the best parts of SR were when it did take itself incredibly serious.

Scifi seems to introduce (generally) a limited amount of fantastic elements to suspend disbelief. Fantasy seems to bask itself in that it has few (if any) limits in terms of extending/bending its reality.

(Which is why I thought Donner leaned more towards scifi/Lester towards fantasy)

If Superman takes the route of scifi, then it could be argued that there might be a limited amount of strong stories one could make, given the template of what Superman & his supporting characters have to be, since there would be a limited amount of fantastic elements that be able to be put into the mix. (I.E. Maybe Supergirl could be included, but the Legion & Time travel might be considered too many elements to believe & push it towards fantasy?)

So..... to me, the key has been having interesting characters you want to hang with, and have them develop in interesting ways, fantasy or scifi.

SR to me did that job enough, but SR brought in personal flaws and elements that just stained the character in a number of Superman fans' eyes- so, I'm getting that- but if that's the case, and a reboot is being chosen, do we want Superman to stay 'pure as snow' or have human fallibilities? Even in SII- he has human fallibility - he does, after all, give up his powers and responsibilities to sleep w/Lois (*ironically, a number of fans who hate SR pounce on how he'd never leave earth without a Superman for five years, but have no problem with Supes' choosing to permanently erase his powers in SII- leaving earth without a Superman potentially forever, so I don't get that- but that's another thread).

If Clark/Superman has no personal human flaws.....will that limit story potentials if it has to center around Supes?

Is fantasy the BEST way to go to keep stories going in a movie series (if the character has to be one dimensional)?

Or should he have human flaws, that he has to learn from, and be more scifi oriented?

Maybe that's what I shoulda asked.
Thoughts?