Confessions of a Comic Book Guy is a weekly column by Steve Bennett of Super-Fly Comics and Games in Yellow Springs, Ohio.  This week, Bennett explains how Man of Steel made people care about Superman.

Spoiler Alert:  This column discusses plot details of Man of Steel.
 
OK, last week I confessed that I had no intention of seeing Man of Steel, but as I kept reading angry opinion pieces about the film something suddenly occurred to me: after decades of being increasingly inconsequential, Superman appears in the #1 movie in the world--and it didn't make most comic book fans happy.  Sure he wasn't "our" Superman.  Dour, unsure and as subdued as the color scheme of his costume, the Man of Steel Superman is basically the one from the Five For Fighting song of the same name (you know, the one with the mournful "it's not easy to be me" refrain).  But regardless of what you may have thought of the movie you have to (or at the very least should) admit at the very least it achieved two things:
 
1) It made a great deal of money.  The desperately cynical among us might suggest this was due mostly to an effective ad campaign coupled with an overwhelming promotional and merchandising blitz--and they would have a point.  But even the film's biggest detractors should admit its success is the result of more than just some canny corporate rebranding.
 
2) It made people care about Superman again.  Even people who really didn't care for the movie (who most likely hadn't given Superman a second thought in years) cared enough to go out of their way to condemn it.  The most recent example of this backlash appears in this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly.  In a piece titled "Superman Breaks A Commandment," staff writer Darren Franich uses Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened To The Man of Tomorrow?" and Superman #22 by John Byrne to address the movie's "ending controversy" (Spoiler Alert: Superman kills Zod).
 
To make a great deal of a money a Superman movie would have to have a Superman which resonates with a worldwide mass audience, and for better or worse that appears to have happened here.  The key word in the previous sentence being "worldwide;" the international market is increasingly important to Hollywood blockbusters and Superman movies have never done all that well overseas.  Maybe the fact that Man of Steel features a more conflicted and pragmatic Superman is the reason why it’s been a success all over the world.
 
Successful fictional characters have to mirror their times and as unflattering as the reflection provided by Man of Steel might be it provides a Superman that a large number of people can believe in, maybe because he isn’t too good to be true.  Like it or not (and make no mistake, no sir, I don't like it) he just might be the Superman the world wants and needs in these weird, dark, uncertain times.
 
I'll admit that it's a little early to declare the brand now fully viable for this century but one indicator I'll be keeping an eye on is how the toys move.  As I was typing this, out of the corner of my eye I caught an ad for the regional hypermarket chain Meijer featuring an adorable red-headed boy wearing a familiar red cape emptying out his piggy bank so he can buy a Man of Steel action figure.  I'm also curious to see just how many people will go as Superman this Halloween and if any grown men will be caught wearing those distressed  Man of Steel t-shirts featuring Henry Cavill’s sourpuss.
 
And I finally saw the Carl's Jr./Hardee’s Man of Steel TV spot (directed by Zack Snyder!) where members of a City of Metropolis work crew get a little overdue (as well as a "Super Bacon Thickburger" which frankly looks large enough to unhinge the average human jaw) thanks to some Superman-derived devastation.  I know it’s in horrible taste but given the mass-casualty sequences in the latter part of the movie, I immediately imagined a sequel where the crew chief announces, "Boy, pulling corpses out of rubble all day sure makes a working man hungry..."
 
A couple of weeks ago (see "Confessions of a Comic Book Guy--Gender Norm Panic Meltdown") I wrote about a piece on the Salon website by Renee Davidson, "Why Are There No Gay Disney Characters?" which name checked Archie Comics’ Kevin Keller.  I was of the opinion we wouldn't see a gay Disney character, as in cartoon character, for another generation or so.  Then came the news that an upcoming episode of the Disney Channel's tween-com Good Luck Charlie will feature a family with same sex parents.  According to a piece in TV Guide, a Disney Channel spokesman said, "Like all Disney Channel programming, it was developed to be relevant to kids and families around the world and to reflect themes of diversity and inclusiveness."
 
And in strangely connected news we've learned a little more about the upcoming Archie movie (see "Archie Movie Plot Reveals") and as the subtitle of the ICv2 piece indicated "Kevin Keller Will Appear."  This has generated remarkably little comment on the Internet which is odd considering this really is kind of a big deal since so far no teen movie (at least of the Disney and Nickelodeon variety) has featured a gay character.  In a lot of ways Archie has been held back by the perception it isn't "hip."  Kevin’s inclusion in the movie is a subtle way of signaling this isn't the case.

The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff of ICv2.com.