Superman Returns Connections between Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and SR

[Superman Pwnage]

Someone recently told me that when Singer was announced to helm the Superman project in 2004, there were rumors that he would do a direct adaption of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" by Alan Moore (V or Vendetta, Watchmen).

Essentially this story marked the end of the precrisis Silverage Superman (the conclusion of the story) to open up the DCU to a new generation of Superman after the Crisis.

In a way this was almost like Singer ending the Reeve age while beginning a new start for Superman in the end.


Even though Singer developed his own story ultimatly, I noticed some similarities;

- the mystery over Superman's disapearance for some years

- putting the silverage past in a vague history like Singer did for the Donner films

- Superman and Lois have a son named Jonathan in the end (though changing the name to Jason may have been prudent to avoid paying loyalties to Moore).

- Lex Luthor uncovering alien technology in the arctic that he uses to try to take over the world.

Essentially, WHttMoT was one of the greatest Superman stories but it ended in a manner that didnt allow for any future continuation.

The common elements of it in SR seemed tweaked enough that they easily allow for continuation in the future.

I wonder if Alan Moore liked the film.

 

[dark_b]

interesting.

 

[bosef982]

Yeah, this was established a long time ago. That's why people who always say, "Singer didn't read a comic" or "Singer needs to look at the source material" are really just spewing crap. He did and if one was more familiar with the mythos, they'd note that the Man of Tomorrow serves SR much like God Loves, Man Kills did for X2.

 

[X-Maniac]

Interesting. What was the reason for Superman's absence in that story?

There is also a Return to Krypton story in which he visited his planet's remains (with Hawkman and Hawkgirl) and floated amid the debris (and had various hallucinations).

 

[I Am The Knight]

I agree that SR feels like the necessary end to a trilogy, that opens a new chapter for Supes.

As for Moore liking the movie, I'm sure he noticed the similarities to his story, but he's never too fond of any of his works turned into movies anyway, so I hope someone gets to ask him in the future.

 

[Showtime]

I was always under the impression that Returns was closing a chapter in the Superman mythos and opening a new one.

 

[Retroman]

Nice observation Pwnage. Very interesting stuff.

 

[dark_b]

Yeah, this was established a long time ago. That's why people who always say, "Singer didn't read a comic" or "Singer needs to look at the source material" are really just spewing crap. He did and if one was more familiar with the mythos, they'd note that the Man of Tomorrow serves SR much like God Loves, Man Kills did for X2.

wait a minute. didnt singer himself said that he doenst read comics?

 

[Retroman]

He obviously has read some comics, he's just not a fanatical comic book geek.

 

[super85]

Cool Superman Pwnage,hadn't thought about this, well Singers writers Dougherty and Harris said in an Wizard interview that they read quite a lot of Superman comics before and during the time they wrote the script, don't think they mentioned "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow" but yea,they could have been inspired by that.

 

[mego joe]

Someone recently told me that when Singer was announced to helm the Superman project in 2004, there were rumors that he would do a direct adaption of "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" by Alan Moore (V or Vendetta, Watchmen).

Essentially this story marked the end of the precrisis Silverage Superman (the conclusion of the story) to open up the DCU to a new generation of Superman after the Crisis.

In a way this was almost like Singer ending the Reeve age while beginning a new start for Superman in the end.


Even though Singer developed his own story ultimatly, I noticed some similarities;

- the mystery over Superman's disapearance for some years

- putting the silverage past in a vague history like Singer did for the Donner films

- Superman and Lois have a son named Jonathan in the end (though changing the name to Jason may have been prudent to avoid paying loyalties to Moore).

- Lex Luthor uncovering alien technology in the arctic that he uses to try to take over the world.

Essentially, WHttMoT was one of the greatest Superman stories but it ended in a manner that didnt allow for any future continuation.

The common elements of it in SR seemed tweaked enough that they easily allow for continuation in the future.

I wonder if Alan Moore liked the film.

Besides some cosmetic similarities, WhtoMoT is nothing like SR. SUperman has retired from heroics to raise a family with Lois. The story is told as Lois is being interviewed by a reporter b/c of her past association with SUperman. SHe goes through the story etc... all the while Clark is there with the kid in the other room. Clark is using an alias and has a moustache. It's is not remotely like SR in tone, spirit or intent.

Now if he had adapted that story, that would have been great. I think there are more similarities in SR to SUperman the Movie.

 

[DrMylesOBoogie]

"Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" is far superior to SR.

 

[El Payaso]

So... Singer based SR on Superman comics in spite of all the haterism.

 

[Pickle-El]

"Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" is far superior to SR.

lexlives v2.0

 

[mego joe]

So... Singer based SR on Superman comics in spite of all the haterism.

Not really. In the comic story being referenced here, Lois is giving an interview explaining the story of Superman's last days. Superman is revealed as Clark to the world. THere is an epic battle at the fortress of solitude where SUperman is trying to protect his friends from attack. Jimmy and Lana sacrifice themselves in the battle. Mr. Mxyzptlk turns out to be behind it all and Superman ends up killing him. Superman says, that even he can't kill and then he goes into a room with Gold Kryptonite to remove his powers permanently then walks out into the arctic waste.

The twist is at the end. Lois is married to "Jordan Elliot" (an americanization of Jor-El). She knows that Jordan is Superman and we see their son Jonathan crush a piece of coal into a diamond.

Does that really sound like SR? I don't think so.

And this story IS far superior to SR.

 

[El Payaso]

Gold kryptonite... Superman killing... Jordan Elliot... Mxyzptylk!

Far superior! Yeah!

 

[mego joe]

Gold kryptonite... Superman killing... Jordan Elliot... Mxyzptylk!

Far superior! Yeah!

Have you ever read it?

It certainly doesn't have the marvelous ideas of SUperman having illegitemate children with Lois Lane, not revealing his identity to her before bedding her, jealously spying on LOis and her fiance and depict SUperman with no intestinal fortitiude or courage to do the right thing and explain to her why he's leaving for 5 years.

What it does have is a SUperman who is not afraid to admit when he's wrong and do what is necessary to correct it. He lays everything he has on the line for his friends. He explains why he is depowering and he marries Lois before he has sex with her and gets her pregnant.

Yes, "Whatever Happened To THe Man Of Tomorrow?" is far superior.

 

[X Knight]

those are good points, mego joe.

giving up your powers to live a "normal" civillian life with the woman you love and raise a child with her......is VERY different than having a sexual relationship with your woman, then abandoning her without notice for 5+ years, forcing her to raise the child by herself or with another man.

actually, I would have liked to see a scenario similar to the "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" in the movie.

it either could have been the finale to a trilogy......or as an interesting start to a new series.

idk, i guess it would be kind of like the Incredibles.

For example, in the prologue section of the movie ( be it text, comic book storyboard, or actual movie ), it would detail an epic battle ( perhaps with Lex and/or Braniac ) in which the villain is (seemingly vanquished), the FOS is destroyed, and Superman is rendered powerless.

Then, we flash forward 10 years or so, Superman is no more. The citizens of the world still wonder what happened to Superman, unaware that he is living among them in a quiet, normal life.

It turns out, Clark and Lois have married and are raising a kid together, and overall are a happy family unit. Everything seems to be going well, until a threat from the past reemerges ( or a new threat combined with an old threat )........

Realizing that the world still needs a Superman, Clark is forced to choose between his family or his job as Superman......

 

[Showtime]

I read Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, and it is good, but I don't know how you can like that story and criticize what Singer did. He was obviously influenced by this story, it can't be denied. Is it exactly like SR, of course not, but there are obvious connections.

My question is when did this come out?

 

[Kabuki_Jo]

I'd just love to hear Moore's and Smith's opinion on SR.

 

[mego joe]

I read Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, and it is good, but I don't know how you can like that story and criticize what Singer did. He was obviously influenced by this story, it can't be denied. Is it exactly like SR, of course not, but there are obvious connections.

My question is when did this come out?

1986. It was the last Earth-1 Superman story before the Byrne revamp after Crisis On Infinite Earths.

It's fairly easy to see the differences to me.


I think the specific details make it a much different story.

In the comic, it is the final Superman story, it answers the questions what would happen to cause Superman to disappear forever. The movie SR, doesn't ask the same question, it asks what happens when SUperman makes mistakes and has to learn to live with them.

 

[Showtime]

There is no doubt there are elements to be found in Returns that came from this story. In turn, Superman giving up his powers at the FOS after fighting a huge battles sounds very similar to the Donner's and Lester's Superman 2. Full circle maybe?

 

[mego joe]

There is no doubt there are elements to be found in Returns that came from this story. In turn, Superman giving up his powers at the FOS after fighting a huge battles sounds very similar to the Donner's and Lester's Superman 2. Full circle maybe?

I can see that Moore might have borrowed the depowering at the Fortress from Superman II. I think it is significant that in the Moore story it took Superman breaking his code of killing for SUperman to decide that Superman should be no more because killing is wrong and not becasue he had no other recourse in order to have a life with Lois. It puts Superman's ethics and responsibility first in priority over having a 'regular' love life.

I think there are similar elements that can be found in SR, but the perspective on the issues is the exact opposite. The most obviouse being the order in which SUperman and Lois 'get together' to conceive a son.

Comic= Identity revealed, explains to Lois that there can be no more Superman, gives up super powers and then they get married and have a child, and live happily as a fulfilled married couple. He gets the peace he deserves after having given so much to so many.

SR= They have sex (in a relationship perhaps, unclear from the movie), Superman leaves w/o explaining why he's leaving for 5 years, Lois finds someone else, has Superman's baby, Superman returns oblivious to the idea that Lois might have moved on, discovers he has a son and has to watch Richard White be husband and father to Lois and his son. Lois never learns that Superman and Clark are the same person. SUperman has to go on knowing that his mistakes are the reason he isn't with Lois, nor is he raising his own son.

I think the order of events tells a lot about the characterization of SUperman in these two different stories. To me the comic version depicts a responsible and selfless Superman, while SR shows an irresponsible and selfish character.

 

[Showtime]

Although I don't agree with everything you've said, it's well put. I think the differences are also the a product of the function of the stories, the comic is a finalization of the Silver Age run for Superman. The arc needed to end, and it ended happily. Returns is the finalization of the Donner Superman in my opinion, but the story is to be continued in sequels. This explains the open ending.

 

[mego joe]

Although I don't agree with everything you've said, it's well put. I think the differences are also the a product of the function of the stories, the comic is a finalization of the Silver Age run for Superman. The arc needed to end, and it ended happily. Returns is the finalization of the Donner Superman in my opinion, but the story is to be continued in sequels. This explains the open ending.

I understand the need for being open ended for sequel possibilities, I just think too many of the detail in SR are off character for Superman and Lois. And ultimately, Superman makes mistakes that are just out of the realm of mistakes that Superman would make. Plus, anything from SR is going to continue into sequels, so he really hasn't ended the Donner Superman. If Lois, Jason and Richard just disappear then I can see the next film as a new, original version.

I don't understand why Singer felt he needed to end Donner's Superman. It felt pretty over a while ago. If anything he's really continued the Donner Superman instead of ending it. It was over. No one would have expected a sequel to the Donner films. If he wants to do his own thing, start fresh, unless the only way he can visualize a Superman film is as a continuation of the Donner films. That seems pretty limited based on the 20 years of comics that have been published since the Donner films were made.