Back

|

Next

He is, as you say, indestructible; he stands for truth and justice and the American way - given that, isn't there a danger in putting him in the real world? Won't people think he should have better things to do than save a woman in a runaway car, or land an out of control plane in the middle of a ball game?

Here's the thing with Superman -- the Second World War was when he really thrived. He became part of war propaganda, he was a huge piece of inspiring entertainment for the troops fighting abroad - but he never went out there and solved the problem. He didn't fight the Germans, he didn't kill Hitler -- he left all that to the real heroes, to the soldiers fighting under the American flag.

As his father tells him, his job is to lead by example. So, you have the archetypal villains, Lex Luthor and others, and the disasters he has to confront. He solves those problems while leaving the real world problems to real world heroes.

We actually talked about it, about Superman going to Iraq and all that, but we figured you had to leave those conflicts, those issues, to the real heroes and villains and let this guy led by example. Let him entertain during tough times.

You remarked just now that, while doing comic franchises, there is a need to introduce fresh characters because the audience asks for it. Yet, in Superman Returns, you stick with the established canon, even your villain Lex Luthor is out of the original movie...

Yes, because in a way this is a retelling, a reintroduction to the original story. We are introducing new characters -- or crafting old characters in new ways.

For instance, Lois Lane here has a boyfriend, she has a child and has developed way beyond the original character. But, in bringing the universe back, as opposed to creating a new universe, we felt it was important to begin with someone we all know and love -- or hate.

The world in 1941 was much different from the world of 1978, which is different from the world today. I think the Superman legacy is less about change than it is about evolution. Sure, he has battled different villains, and there have been countless permutations of his costume over the years. Certainly, in this movie, he is dealing with an incredible amount of change after being gone for five years. Yet, one thing remains constant…his inherent trait to use his special abilities to lead by example and do good for the world.

There is this talk of Superman as a metaphor for Jesus -- is that what the genre is all about? Do people project onto the superhero whatever they want to see in him?

Yes, exactly. He is the original superhero, the ultimate superhero, so people will project whatever they want on to him. I think the origin is definitely in the realm of Judeo-Christian allegory and to not acknowledge that would be silly. I think, in a sense, the first film is the story of Moses, where he sends his child to a foreign place to be raised and to counter his perceived destiny; here, we deal with certain allegories that are more Christian in nature.

When you grow up in a Judeo-Christian society, these things find their way into your mind and your work, one way or another, so I think that is a healthy thing. We had this even with X-Men 2 -- this coming out scene where a character tells his parents he is a mutant, and we had a night crawler with a rosary in church, who teaches Storm about faith -- these things can co-exist.

In the picture: director Bryan Singer explains a shot to Brandon Routh on the sets of the film