Thursday, January 26, 2006

Comparing the representation of two cultural icons (edit)

There’s Superman and there’s the Batman. Both icons have become part of the cultural stamp that comes factory printed on the tabula-not-really-quite-so-rasa minds of infants.

That is to say, most children know who Superman and Batman are before they can open their eyes or even spit-up well. There are very few things like this. The other notable one, research shows, before they are even born, most children know Darth Vader is Luke's father. (Except my fiancée Erin who grew up in a house with two sisters. So I spoiled it on accident. Geez, I'm sorry.)

But I'm getting off the point. There are many areas with which to contrast these two comic book icons, but I mean to point out one, undeniable fact; while the image of Batman is iconic and strong in and of itself, it serves only to be enhanced by a movie.

Superman, while bold and dynamic and powerful, I do not be to be so. Not in a movie. He is a man in red underwear. He looks great in print but in real life movie form?... I am not yet convinced.


A. B.
A. I'm just not so sure I'm sure about this.
Now this is more like it.

Plus, after Alex Ross's Superman, I can not see any other incarnation and take it as seriously as I do Ross's. But that's that.

by Alex Ross

Special thanks to Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, & Bob Kane. Without this three fellows, this post would not have been possible.

* * *

1 comment:

frgodbeyjr said...

To offer a viewpoint from a 46 year old man... First, Christopher Reeves made for a soft looking Superman. Superman had "super" strenght, so why not have someone who looks the part... The Rock would have made a much better Superman. Batman depended on brains and fancy toys. Two totally different icons who depend on two different approaches to protecting the world. Apples and oranges. However, I agree, it will always be difficult to have Superman come across in film as he does in print.