[002]
TheMightyHeptagon
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
While I appreciate that it was revised to be a bit less opinionated, I still don\'t think it\'s a valid example of a FranchiseOriginalSin. As I said before, the definition of that trope is \'\'\
to:
While I appreciate that it was revised to be a bit less opinionated, I still don\\\'t think it\\\'s a valid example of a FranchiseOriginalSin. As I said before, the definition of that trope is \\\'\\\'\\\"A problem with a series that\\\'s initially tolerable, but eventually grows out of control and leads to its decline.\\\"\\\'\\\' In order to count, an example has to be an inherent flaw in a series, not just a creative choice that not everybody loves. Simply put, I\\\'m still not convinced that Superman\\\'s portrayal as a MessianicArchetype was an inherent flaw with \\\'\\\'Film/SupermanTheMovie\\\'\\\'.
As I understand them, the two arguments for that point are \\\'\\\'\\\"the comics character isn\\\'t traditionally much like Jesus\\\"\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\"it doesn\\\'t really go anywhere thematically\\\"\\\'\\\'. Respectfully, I have to disagree with both points.
Re: the first:
He kind of \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', though. Not to pull DeathOfTheAuthor, but it\\\'s not exactly a stretch to apply a Christian reading to the original \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' comics, even if it\\\'s not exactly what his creators had in mind. Superman\\\'s story has multiple parallels with Jesus\\\' story; that\\\'s arguably one of the reasons why the Superman comics have so much thematic resonance. Just to name a few:
* He\\\'s a benevolent figure with heavenly lineage and otherworldly powers, yet he was raised by two mortal parents with the first initials \\\"J\\\" and \\\"M\\\" (get it?).
* The pastoral imagery of Smallville, Kansas is very similar to the pastoral imagery traditionally used for the Nativity. The infant Kal-El is even traditionally depicted in swaddling clothes, just like the infant Jesus.
* His characterization emphasizes his humility, his honesty, and his love for all humanity, which are all qualities traditionally ascribed to Jesus.
* He spends much of his time traveling the world and performing small acts of charity and goodwill for ordinary people.
* He often clashes with the wealthy and the powerful, emphasizing that righteousness always prevails over worldly riches and authority.
* He represents the best qualities of humankind, and shows flawed humans their true potential.
* He has a close circle of human followers who keep his message alive, and one of them is a woman with an AlliterativeName.
* His Kryptonian family name, \\\"El\\\", is a near-perfect homonym of \\\"אל‬\\\", one of the many Hebrew words for \\\"God\\\".
While I\\\'m aware that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were Jewish, that doesn\\\'t completely preclude a Christian reading of \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\'. For one thing, they were almost certainly \\\'\\\'aware\\\'\\\' of the story of Jesus, considering they were born and raised in the United States (a majority Christian country), and it\\\'s not so absurd to suggest that they used Christian imagery and themes to resonate with a wider audience, or just because they thought it made for an interesting story. Similarly, \\\'\\\'Film/GroundhogDay\\\'\\\' has many Buddhist themes, even though Creator/HaroldRamis wasn\\\'t a Buddhist himself; and \\\'\\\'Franchise/StarWars\\\'\\\' famously uses elements of Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu philosophy in its portrayal of the Force, even though Creator/GeorgeLucas wasn\\\'t any of those things. A story\\\'s subtext doesn\\\'t necessarily have to align perfectly with an author\\\'s background. As for the common rebuttal that Superman is more inspired by Moses than Jesus: there\\\'s no reason he can\\\'t have been inspired by \\\'\\\'both\\\'\\\'. The Christian themes in \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' are just subtext, not full-blown source material; authors are allowed to draw their inspiration from multiple sources.
Re: the second point:
It kind of \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\', though. Once you get past the superficial storytelling beats, most of the story\\\'s thematic subtext comes from the fact that Superman is an idealized paragon of virtue who comes to a flawed world that isn\\\'t completely ready for him--hence why so many people react with skepticism, assuming that he can\\\'t possibly be as benevolent as he seems. And like I said, a big part of the character\\\'s appeal comes from the fact that he brings out the best in people, just like how Jesus--as a MessianicArchetype--was said to bring out the best in humanity. And while the story doesn\\\'t end with a crucifixion scene, it does end with Superman losing Lois Lane after choosing to save the world at the cost of the woman he loves; subtextually, the ending is all about the horrible burden of protecting humanity, which forces Superman to give up any chance of a normal, happy life.
(Yes, I know that Lois lives, but the subtext is still pretty clear; being humanity\\\'s savior isn\\\'t easy, and it requires sacrifice)
As I understand them, the two arguments for that point are \\\'\\\'\\\"the comics character isn\\\'t traditionally much like Jesus\\\"\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\"it doesn\\\'t really go anywhere thematically\\\"\\\'\\\'. Respectfully, I have to disagree with both points.
Re: the first:
He kind of \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', though. Not to pull DeathOfTheAuthor, but it\\\'s not exactly a stretch to apply a Christian reading to the original \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' comics, even if it\\\'s not exactly what his creators had in mind. Superman\\\'s story has multiple parallels with Jesus\\\' story; that\\\'s arguably one of the reasons why the Superman comics have so much thematic resonance. Just to name a few:
* He\\\'s a benevolent figure with heavenly lineage and otherworldly powers, yet he was raised by two mortal parents with the first initials \\\"J\\\" and \\\"M\\\" (get it?).
* The pastoral imagery of Smallville, Kansas is very similar to the pastoral imagery traditionally used for the Nativity. The infant Kal-El is even traditionally depicted in swaddling clothes, just like the infant Jesus.
* His characterization emphasizes his humility, his honesty, and his love for all humanity, which are all qualities traditionally ascribed to Jesus.
* He spends much of his time traveling the world and performing small acts of charity and goodwill for ordinary people.
* He often clashes with the wealthy and the powerful, emphasizing that righteousness always prevails over worldly riches and authority.
* He represents the best qualities of humankind, and shows flawed humans their true potential.
* He has a close circle of human followers who keep his message alive, and one of them is a woman with an AlliterativeName.
* His Kryptonian family name, \\\"El\\\", is a near-perfect homonym of \\\"אל‬\\\", one of the many Hebrew words for \\\"God\\\".
While I\\\'m aware that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were Jewish, that doesn\\\'t completely preclude a Christian reading of \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\'. For one thing, they were almost certainly \\\'\\\'aware\\\'\\\' of the story of Jesus, considering they were born and raised in the United States (a majority Christian country), and it\\\'s not so absurd to suggest that they used Christian imagery and themes to resonate with a wider audience, or just because they thought it made for an interesting story. Similarly, \\\'\\\'Film/GroundhogDay\\\'\\\' has many Buddhist themes, even though Creator/HaroldRamis wasn\\\'t a Buddhist himself; and \\\'\\\'Franchise/StarWars\\\'\\\' famously uses elements of Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu philosophy in its portrayal of the Force, even though Creator/GeorgeLucas wasn\\\'t any of those things. A story\\\'s subtext doesn\\\'t necessarily have to align perfectly with an author\\\'s background. As for the common rebuttal that Superman is more inspired by Moses than Jesus: there\\\'s no reason he can\\\'t have been inspired by \\\'\\\'both\\\'\\\'. The Christian themes in \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' are just subtext, not full-blown source material; authors are allowed to draw their inspiration from multiple sources.
Re: the second point:
It kind of \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\', though. Once you get past the superficial storytelling beats, most of the story\\\'s thematic subtext comes from the fact that Superman is an idealized paragon of virtue who comes to a flawed world that isn\\\'t completely ready for him--hence why so many people react with skepticism, assuming that he can\\\'t possibly be as benevolent as he seems. And like I said, a big part of the character\\\'s appeal comes from the fact that he brings out the best in people, just like how Jesus--as a MessianicArchetype--was said to bring out the best in humanity. And while the story doesn\\\'t end with a crucifixion scene, it does end with Superman losing Lois Lane after choosing to save the world at the cost of the woman he loves; subtextually, the ending is all about the horrible burden of protecting humanity, which forces Superman to give up any chance of a normal, happy life.
(Yes, I know that Lois lives, but the subtext is still pretty clear; being humanity\\\'s savior isn\\\'t easy, and it requires sacrifice)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
While I appreciate that it was revised to be a bit less opinionated, I still don\'t think it\'s a valid example of a FranchiseOriginalSin. As I said before, the definition of that trope is \'\'\
to:
While I appreciate that it was revised to be a bit less opinionated, I still don\\\'t think it\\\'s a valid example of a FranchiseOriginalSin. As I said before, the definition of that trope is \\\'\\\'\\\"A problem with a series that\\\'s initially tolerable, but eventually grows out of control and leads to its decline.\\\"\\\'\\\' In order to count, an example has to be an inherent flaw in a series, not just a creative choice that not everybody loves. Simply put, I\\\'m still not convinced that Superman\\\'s portrayal as a MessianicArchetype was an inherent flaw with \\\'\\\'Film/SupermanTheMovie\\\'\\\'.
As I understand them, the two arguments for that point are \\\'\\\'\\\"the comics character isn\\\'t traditionally much like Jesus\\\"\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\"it doesn\\\'t really go anywhere thematically\\\"\\\'\\\'. Respectfully, I have to disagree with both points.
Re: the first:
He kind of \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', though. Not to pull DeathOfTheAuthor, but it\\\'s not exactly a stretch to apply a Christian reading to the original \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' comics, even if it\\\'s not exactly what his creators had in mind. Superman\\\'s story has multiple parallels with Jesus\\\' story; that\\\'s arguably one of the reasons why the Superman comics have so much thematic resonance. Just to name a few:
* He\\\'s a benevolent figure with heavenly lineage and otherworldly powers, yet he was raised by two mortal parents with the first initials \\\"J\\\" and \\\"M\\\" (get it?).
* The pastoral imagery of Smallville, Kansas is very similar to the pastoral imagery traditionally used for the Nativity. The infant Kal-El is even traditionally depicted in swaddling clothes, just like the infant Jesus.
* His characterization emphasizes his humility, his honesty, and his love for all humanity, which are all qualities traditionally ascribed to Jesus.
* He spends much of his time traveling the world and performing small acts of charity and goodwill for ordinary people.
* He often clashes with the wealthy and the powerful, emphasizing that righteousness always prevails over worldly riches and authority.
* He represents the best qualities of humankind, and shows flawed humans their true potential.
* He has a close circle of human followers who keep his message alive, and one of them is a woman with an AlliterativeName.
* His Kryptonian family name, \\\"El\\\", is a near-perfect homonym of \\\"אל‬\\\", one of the many Hebrew words for \\\"God\\\".
While I\\\'m aware that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were Jewish, that doesn\\\'t completely preclude a Christian reading of \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\'. For one thing, they were almost certainly \\\'\\\'aware\\\'\\\' of the story of Jesus, considering they were born and raised in the United States (a majority Christian country), and it\\\'s not so absurd to suggest that they used Christian imagery and themes to resonate with a wider audience, or just because they thought it made for an interesting story. Similarly, \\\'\\\'Film/GroundhogDay\\\'\\\' has many Buddhist themes, even though Creator/HaroldRamis wasn\\\'t a Buddhist himself; and \\\'\\\'Franchise/StarWars\\\'\\\' famously uses elements of Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu philosophy in its portrayal of the Force, even though Creator/GeorgeLucas wasn\\\'t any of those things. A story\\\'s subtext doesn\\\'t necessarily have to align perfectly with an author\\\'s background. As for the common rebuttal that Superman is more inspired by Moses than Jesus: there\\\'s no reason he can\\\'t have been inspired by \\\'\\\'both\\\'\\\'; the Christian themes in \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' are just subtext, not full-blown source material.
Re: the second point:
It kind of \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\', though. Once you get past the superficial storytelling beats, most of the story\\\'s thematic subtext comes from the fact that Superman is an idealized paragon of virtue who comes to a flawed world that isn\\\'t completely ready for him--hence why so many people react with skepticism, assuming that he can\\\'t possibly be as benevolent as he seems. And like I said, a big part of the character\\\'s appeal comes from the fact that he brings out the best in people, just like how Jesus--as a MessianicArchetype--was said to bring out the best in humanity. And while the story doesn\\\'t end with a crucifixion scene, it does end with Superman losing Lois Lane after choosing to save the world at the cost of the woman he loves; subtextually, the ending is all about the horrible burden of protecting humanity, which forces Superman to give up any chance of a normal, happy life.
(Yes, I know that Lois lives, but the subtext is still pretty clear; being humanity\\\'s savior isn\\\'t easy, and it requires sacrifice)
As I understand them, the two arguments for that point are \\\'\\\'\\\"the comics character isn\\\'t traditionally much like Jesus\\\"\\\'\\\', and \\\'\\\'\\\"it doesn\\\'t really go anywhere thematically\\\"\\\'\\\'. Respectfully, I have to disagree with both points.
Re: the first:
He kind of \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\', though. Not to pull DeathOfTheAuthor, but it\\\'s not exactly a stretch to apply a Christian reading to the original \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' comics, even if it\\\'s not exactly what his creators had in mind. Superman\\\'s story has multiple parallels with Jesus\\\' story; that\\\'s arguably one of the reasons why the Superman comics have so much thematic resonance. Just to name a few:
* He\\\'s a benevolent figure with heavenly lineage and otherworldly powers, yet he was raised by two mortal parents with the first initials \\\"J\\\" and \\\"M\\\" (get it?).
* The pastoral imagery of Smallville, Kansas is very similar to the pastoral imagery traditionally used for the Nativity. The infant Kal-El is even traditionally depicted in swaddling clothes, just like the infant Jesus.
* His characterization emphasizes his humility, his honesty, and his love for all humanity, which are all qualities traditionally ascribed to Jesus.
* He spends much of his time traveling the world and performing small acts of charity and goodwill for ordinary people.
* He often clashes with the wealthy and the powerful, emphasizing that righteousness always prevails over worldly riches and authority.
* He represents the best qualities of humankind, and shows flawed humans their true potential.
* He has a close circle of human followers who keep his message alive, and one of them is a woman with an AlliterativeName.
* His Kryptonian family name, \\\"El\\\", is a near-perfect homonym of \\\"אל‬\\\", one of the many Hebrew words for \\\"God\\\".
While I\\\'m aware that Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were Jewish, that doesn\\\'t completely preclude a Christian reading of \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\'. For one thing, they were almost certainly \\\'\\\'aware\\\'\\\' of the story of Jesus, considering they were born and raised in the United States (a majority Christian country), and it\\\'s not so absurd to suggest that they used Christian imagery and themes to resonate with a wider audience, or just because they thought it made for an interesting story. Similarly, \\\'\\\'Film/GroundhogDay\\\'\\\' has many Buddhist themes, even though Creator/HaroldRamis wasn\\\'t a Buddhist himself; and \\\'\\\'Franchise/StarWars\\\'\\\' famously uses elements of Buddhist, Taoist and Hindu philosophy in its portrayal of the Force, even though Creator/GeorgeLucas wasn\\\'t any of those things. A story\\\'s subtext doesn\\\'t necessarily have to align perfectly with an author\\\'s background. As for the common rebuttal that Superman is more inspired by Moses than Jesus: there\\\'s no reason he can\\\'t have been inspired by \\\'\\\'both\\\'\\\'; the Christian themes in \\\'\\\'Superman\\\'\\\' are just subtext, not full-blown source material.
Re: the second point:
It kind of \\\'\\\'does\\\'\\\', though. Once you get past the superficial storytelling beats, most of the story\\\'s thematic subtext comes from the fact that Superman is an idealized paragon of virtue who comes to a flawed world that isn\\\'t completely ready for him--hence why so many people react with skepticism, assuming that he can\\\'t possibly be as benevolent as he seems. And like I said, a big part of the character\\\'s appeal comes from the fact that he brings out the best in people, just like how Jesus--as a MessianicArchetype--was said to bring out the best in humanity. And while the story doesn\\\'t end with a crucifixion scene, it does end with Superman losing Lois Lane after choosing to save the world at the cost of the woman he loves; subtextually, the ending is all about the horrible burden of protecting humanity, which forces Superman to give up any chance of a normal, happy life.
(Yes, I know that Lois lives, but the subtext is still pretty clear; being humanity\\\'s savior isn\\\'t easy, and it requires sacrifice)
