Thoughts On That Change To Superman’s Origin? *Spoilers*

[Detective Conan]

As those who’ve already seen the film(and those like me who haven’t, but have already been spoiled anyway) know it’s revealed that Jor-El & Lara El sent Kal to Earth for nefarious purposes - to conquer and rule the planet and revive the Kryptonian race through repopulation. This revelation is seen by many as running in contrary to how Supes birth parents have been depicted before — most notably in the Donner movies where Jor-El (played by Kryptyn’s Marlon Brando) specifically implores upon his son to use his gifts to help his adoptive world.

Though that isn’t to say the idea of portraying Superman’s alien origins in a negative light aren’t without precedent since throughout the years you’ve had media ranging from the cult live-action series Smallville to the recent animated series My Adventures With Superman toy around with the idea of Kal’s people not exactly being saints.

Where do you stand on this change? Is this change antithetical to what you know and love from the source material? Does portraying Superman’s birth parents in this manner hurt your enjoyment of the film for you or is this an inspired creative choice that you like?

 

[Primal Slayer]

I'm fairly indifferent to it but....to do it just to do it seems stupid if it doesnt have any impact overall on the Super-verse.

 

[DKDetective]

I am a big supporter of the idea of making Jor-El and Lara more flawed. I can't stand the Donner version where Jor-El is basically an omniscient God-like figure. I think MAWS struck a good balance overall, as did The Batman where Thomas Wayne was portrayed a good, but naive man who made some terrible mistakes.

Here, I think there are serious thematic issues with the choice given how extreme Gunn went with the Els' message (conquer, outbreed them, kill any dissenters). First, given that Superman is an iconic immigrant story, the subtext here is very problematic in light of current events. By portraying the Els as telling Kal-El to conquer, breed, and rule Earth, it plays directly into the evil stereotypes of immigrants and refugees being perpetuated by the fascistic Trump administration and its xenophobic supporters.

Second, the way the film portrays Clark as basically rejecting his Kryptonian heritage and birth parents in favour of the Kents can be read as basically Clark is a "good one" because he assimilated and got rid of his heritage to become 'Murican. Some people are also understandably finding that really problematic given the white Midwesterners don't exactly have the same reputation as salt of the Earth types they had when Siegel and Shuster created Superman.

All of this has issues as well from the perspective of adopted children. The idea that adopted children should ignore their biological parentage has not been a success and is not supported by most modern psychological experts.

It didn't bother me as much as it did some others as I suspect Gunn intends to reveal later that the message isn't the whole story (which undermines this as a movie telling a complete story) and the movie doesn't dwell on this (which is kinda a storytelling problem). I don't think Gunn intended the above subtext. It is pretty clear he was inspired by his father's passing to tell a story about what he thought made his father a great parent as the man who raised him (which has a lot of heart and some good insight), but out of ignorance it bungles through a minefield of issues about perception of immigrants and the role of biological parents in adopted children's lives.

Basically, we got the white Boomer perspective on issues he knows nothing about and the film suffers for it. Hopefully, this all gets retconned with Woman of Tomorrow.

 

[The Batman]

It didn't ruin the movie for me, but I don't really like the idea. I'm already over the "Let's make the iconic dead parent(s) corrupt in this version" trope.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Instantly makes this whole take a write off for me. Far worse than any of Snyder’s adaptational choices, both a bad idea on a character/lore level and horribly offensive in its real world messaging which is obviously way more important.

I don’t like the movie in general but this escalates it from being just a bad movie to one that feels kinda ****ed up and nasty.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It depends on the execution. I wouldn't want this to be the new norm in every take, but as with any change, it's less about the idea and how it's executed. Here, I think it worked well. Gunn pays it off well at the end.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Idk, the way Kryptonians are portrayed is so bizarre and feels based on anti-foreign phobias with the whole Breed With Our Women **** and then the Kent’s are cartoon rednecks in a totally insufferable way and the movie loves them for it. It’s all just… so weird and terrible.

 

[DKDetective]

Idk, the way Kryptonians are portrayed is so bizarre and feels based on anti-foreign phobias with the whole Breed With Our Women **** and then the Kent’s are cartoon rednecks in a totally insufferable way and the movie loves them for it. It’s all just… so weird and terrible.

After having some time to reflect, the only believable way to make a sweet guy like David seem scary and malevolent is to make people think he is here to steal their ladies.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

After having some time to reflect, the only believable way to make a sweet guy like David seem scary and malevolent is to make people think he is here to steal their ladies.

This would work soooo well if it was manufactured on Lex’s part.

 

[Stringer]

I didn't care for it, and doesn't seem like it'll be revisited in future iterations either.

 

[DKDetective]

I didn't care for it, and doesn't seem like it'll be revisited in future iterations either.

They kinda have to revisit it given that they are making a Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow film coming out next year. Given that the core of that take is a drunken, PTSD suffering Kara due to her survival of Krypton's destruction seeking justice for her father's death, the movie is going to have to revisit Krypton and its culture.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I didn't care for it, and doesn't seem like it'll be revisited in future iterations either.

There’s insufficient outcry and it feels like Gunn is VERY dedicated to the idea. The twist is fundamentally what the movie is ABOUT and there’s a reason it dedicates like three separate little scenes to reassuring the audience it’s absolutely not fake.

I’m sure they’ll flesh out Kryptonian culture but the core of it seems locked in.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

I wasn't a fan of that creative choice at all.

Considering the current state of the world, muddying Superman's immigration allegory sends out the WRONG message and it just felt random. Gunn could've came up with a plethora of other things for Kryptonian drama, but to have Clark completely wash his hands of his biological parents and completely assimilating with his new adoptive white farmer family and framing it in the way he did, that was a choice.

No me gusta.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I wasn't a fan of that creative choice at all.

Considering the current state of the world, muddying Superman's immigration allegory sends out the WRONG message and it just felt random. Gunn could've came up with a plethora of other things for Kryptonian drama, but to have Clark completely wash his hands of his biological parents and completely assimilating with his new adoptive white farmer family and framing it in the way he did, that was a choice.

No me gusta.

And, again, it’s exacerbated so badly by Gunn’s choice to base it in sexual fear of immigrants/minorities which is suuuch a specific thing to evoke. Obviously, it’s not true about CLARK but the choice to have it based in some actual Truth is so thoughtless. If you’re only gonna think about Superman lore implications and fan drama about which parents matter more maybe don’t try to also invoke real world politics while you do it.

 

[Gee]

Here, I think there are serious thematic issues with the choice given how extreme Gunn went with the Els' message (conquer, outbreed them, kill any dissenters).

Yep, I got religious warlord vibes...

 

[DKDetective]

Yep, I got religious warlord vibes...

Yeah, and given the particular phrasing used, I couldn't help but get some troubling parallels to Islamophobic rhetoric/stereotypes.

 

[king666]

I don't really care for how the Kents were portrayed, but I strongly dislike how Gunn made the Els evil. Mourning for his lost planet is kind of central to the Superman mythos imo, and making his Kryptonian parents evil goes against that. Hopefully they can sort of fix this in a sequel.

 

[Lily Adler]

I would like to point out I had the same idea for an Elseworlds about this. So Gunn!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I am a big fan of the El's being tragic characters in the comics and Superman feeling the loss of Krypton and it being a part of why he fights so hard to protect Earth because he doesn't want the same thing happening again.

What Gunn did with the El's was not my favourite choice in the movie, one of the few things I didn't like, but I also think it can easily be walked back or changed in a future movie. So it didn't ruin anything for me.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

It's definitely a choice but not surprising.

He did the same thing in GOTG2:

He's also a Smallville fan:

 

[king666]

Assuming the fascist angle is exclusive to Jor-El and Lara (and not to every Kryptonian), I can see a For the Man Who Has Everything-style sequel rolling this back. Superman somehow visits a Krypton from the past. Jor-El and Lara become tyrants because Krypton's society refused to change their ways, eventually leading to the planet's destruction. Supes learns to embrace his heritage and teaches Jor-El and Lara not to be fascist d***heads. Idk.

 

[The Guard]

I get the sensitive nature of the themes in the movie, but let's not confuse exploring an approach to something with condoning it. Execution matters.

Here, I think there are serious thematic issues with the choice given how extreme Gunn went with the Els' message (conquer, outbreed them, kill any dissenters). First, given that Superman is an iconic immigrant story, the subtext here is very problematic in light of current events. By portraying the Els as telling Kal-El to conquer, breed, and rule Earth, it plays directly into the evil stereotypes of immigrants and refugees being perpetuated by the fascistic Trump administration and its xenophobic supporters.

Well, yes. They're supposed to be indicative of harmful stereotypes of immigrants, refugees, and historically of minority and "other" groups, and that's why they're the major mental and moral conflict in the film. But what does Gunn almost immediately do in the film when these ideas are introduced?

Spoiler

First, he shows that Superman rejects them, via his conversation with Lois and the recognition of the Justice Gang that he's probably not those things.

Second, he, as the filmmaker, satirizes the process the political pundits and Luthor's use of them to try to undermine Superman (demonization of immigrants). He has the villain using the buzz phrases, the sexual demonization, the "viral" clickbait stuff. He makes absolute fun of it, and shows it for what it is. Evil and manipulative.

And the message that immigrants should discard their heritage is nowhere, nowhere in the film. That's a really broad reading of a specific story point.

The only thing the film actually shows in that regard is that

Spoiler

he appreciates his human upbringing and his choice to become more human more as a result of facing conflict over his original heritage. But he's not "fully assimilated" either. The end of the movie is about appreciating the Kents more than it is about rejecting the Els or his Kryptonian heritage. But it could be seen as a balance of both.

 

[DKDetective]

I get the sensitive nature of the themes in the movie, but let's not confuse exploring an approach to something with condoning it. Execution matters.



Well, yes. They're supposed to be indicative of harmful stereotypes of immigrants, refugees, and historically of minority and "other" groups, and that's why they're the major mental and moral conflict in the film. But what does Gunn almost immediately do in the film when these ideas are introduced?

Spoiler

First, he shows that Superman rejects them, via his conversation with Lois and the recognition of the Justice Gang that he's probably not those things.

Second, he, as the filmmaker, satirizes the process the political pundits and Luthor's use of them to try to undermine Superman (demonization of immigrants). He has the villain using the buzz phrases, the sexual demonization, the "viral" clickbait stuff. He makes absolute fun of it, and shows it for what it is. Evil and manipulative.

And the message that immigrants should discard their heritage is nowhere, nowhere in the film. That's a really broad reading of a specific story point.

The only thing the film actually shows in that regard is that

Spoiler

he appreciates his human upbringing and his choice to become more human more as a result of facing conflict over his original heritage. But he's not "fully assimilated" either. The end of the movie is about appreciating the Kents more than it is about rejecting the Els or his Kryptonian heritage. But it could be seen as a balance of both.

Yeah, nope. None of you points have any remote validity or anyway rebut anything I said.

It is condoning the harmful stereotypes because that is exactly what Jor-El and Lara are. It would be one thing if it was a fake out or manipulation by Lex like in Birthright, but within the film, it is accepted as truth that they are Kryptonian supremacist imperialists that wanted Kal-El to conquer Earth.

And the film is not about Clark finding balance between his Kryptonian and human parents or just learning to appreciate the Kents more, if it was I would have no concern whatsoever. The film literally has him flat out replace the images/messages of the Els from the start of the film with that of the Kents. Those are literally the first and last scenes of the film.

You are also ignoring the fact that there is precedent of a hateful, bigot John Byrne doing this exact thing in the comics:

In 2005, while criticizing portrayals of Superman emphasizing his connection to his home planet, Byrne described immigrants with excessive attachment to their nations of origin as "ungrateful little ****s."[116] Similar views were earlier expressed in Byrne's The Man of Steel (1986), in which Superman was not considered born until after his Kryptonian artificial matrix opened after landing in Kansas, thus making him an American citizen by birth. The miniseries ends with Superman declaring, "Krypton bred me, but it was Earth that gave me all I am. All that matters."

If you can't understand the problematic subtext that is implied in this film, whether intentional or unintentional, there is no point is us discussing this.

 

[donuts]

I get the sensitive nature of the themes in the movie, but let's not confuse exploring an approach to something with condoning it. Execution matters.



Well, yes. They're supposed to be indicative of harmful stereotypes of immigrants, refugees, and historically of minority and "other" groups, and that's why they're the major mental and moral conflict in the film. But what does Gunn almost immediately do in the film when these ideas are introduced?

Spoiler

First, he shows that Superman rejects them, via his conversation with Lois and the recognition of the Justice Gang that he's probably not those things.

Second, he, as the filmmaker, satirizes the process the political pundits and Luthor's use of them to try to undermine Superman (demonization of immigrants). He has the villain using the buzz phrases, the sexual demonization, the "viral" clickbait stuff. He makes absolute fun of it, and shows it for what it is. Evil and manipulative.

And the message that immigrants should discard their heritage is nowhere, nowhere in the film. That's a really broad reading of a specific story point.

The only thing the film actually shows in that regard is that

Spoiler

he appreciates his human upbringing and his choice to become more human more as a result of facing conflict over his original heritage. But he's not "fully assimilated" either. The end of the movie is about appreciating the Kents more than it is about rejecting the Els or his Kryptonian heritage. But it could be seen as a balance of both.

This.