To watch Man of Steel forever.

June 14, 2013. A day that film historians will study forever. The release date of Man of Steel, and the beginning of a new age of humankind. The Age of Man of Steel (2013).

It's been seven long years since I've gotten to sit in a theatre and watch a Superman movie on the big screen. Unless you count the New Beverly Cinema's 2009 double feature of Batman (1989) and Superman: The Movie (1978). But even then, it's been four long years. The days have slowed in the past week, and the wait has been excruciating. They even uploaded the full Hans Zimmer Man of Steel score to Spotify, but I haven't listened to it because the first time I hear the score should be in the context of the picture. What I have allowed myself is the constant rewatching of this:



That three-minute fever dream has given me a daily kiss of Superman to keep me going. I've also revisited a few other Superman things. A few days ago, I rewatched Superman Returns (2006). This movie gets a fair bit of flack. I've heard some call it the worst superhero movie ever made. Not only is it not the worst superhero movie ever made, it's not even the worst Superman movie ever made. I maintain that it was a ballsy move on Singer's part. It would have been easy to go with a reboot, especially given the popularity of Smallville at the time, but they took the opportunity to make a direct sequel to a movie that was older than most of their target audience, using the old James Bond convention of bringing back specific cinematic interpretations of characters, played by a younger cast. Nobody, at that time, would have ever predicted that that was what was gonna happen. And I appreciate that it did, because a reboot can happen literally whenever, but Singer saw a unique opportunity to do something weird, and he fucking took it.

Brandon Routh was about as close as they were going to get to the inhuman goodness and charisma of Christopher Reeve, although his hair never looked quite right. Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor is, to my eye, a little more unhinged than Gene Hackman. Hackman's Luthor had insane evil schemes, but he went about them with a calm intelligence, like maybe we just hadn't realized how brilliant his plan really was. Spacey's Luthor makes you terrified to be on the same continent as him. He claims to be a man of the people while conspiring to kill billions of them. It's safe to say prison changed him, as early in the film, he explains that in prison, "one needs to make creepy friends in order to survive," because inside, his talents were worth "less than a carton of cigarettes and a sharp piece of metal in your pocket."  And indeed, in the climactic confrontation with Superman, Luthor has him beaten by a gang of thugs before stabbing him in the back with a kryptonite shiv. I never thought about it, but this is Prison Lex.

Frank Langella doesn't even bother to model his Perry White after the perpetually agitated Jackie Cooper, instead delivering what could have been angry lines with an air of quiet wisdom. A change I really liked. But when it comes to Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane, how can we possibly believe she's the same character portrayed by the fiery, chain-smoking Margot Kidder? She looks like she's 15. But the casting is not the biggest problem with this movie.

Its fatal flaw is that it values establishing mood over some very necessary exposition. I don't remember where I heard this, but the idea behind the events leading up to Superman Returns is that Lex Luthor, as vengeance for his imprisonment, somehow FAKES the evidence that a piece of Krypton remains out in space, which is what inspires Superman to investigate and basically miss five years of his life on Earth. Superman took five years from Luthor, so Luthor took five years from Superman. This is a nice poetic twist, but it's not in the movie. Another thing that doesn't really land is how devastating it is that Luthor steals the crystals from the Fortress of Solitude. Those crystals contained the recordings of Jor-El. All the knowledge of the extinct planet Krypton. The last sanctuary for a lost Superman. And they're gone. There was supposed to be a line when Superman discovers the crystals are missing. He was meant to whisper, "Father..." That line is not there, so we don't realize that Superman has basically just lost his father again. There's also an extended flashback at the Kent farm of Clark Kent fucking around jumping through fields. Why weren't there any flashbacks of his adoptive father Jonathan Kent whose death so devastated him in Superman: The Movie (1978)? There is a deleted scene in the DVD of Clark looking around his old bedroom at many photos of his father. Why did you cut that and not the stupid thing of him jumping in a field? Oh! Well we can't lose the field jumping scene; they'll burn the theatre to the fucking ground!

But the movie is interesting, and beautiful, and I'm glad it was made. You could never make it again. It's pure and noble, like the man himself. I even like the idea of the boy character. I love how the boy actor plays it, and I love how Luthor immediately figures the kid out and tiptoes around it as much as he can.

The go-to argument since 2006 for why this movie is bad is that "Superman doesn't throw a punch the whole movie." That's the jist, both literally and figuratively. In fact, the only punching is when Luthor's goons beat the shit out of him in the aforementioned shiv scene (I always feel like Bryan Singer is working some stuff out of his own in that scene). But who does Superman punch in Superman: The Movie (1978)? Nobody. The reason why Superman is the greatest superhero of all time is that he doesn't punch you. He has power unfathomable, but he is always holding back. Because his greatest strength is his character. The goodness instilled in him by his parents. That's why Jonathan Kent is so important. Jonathan Kent is Superman.

Bryan Singer should have been allowed one sequel. We saw the incredible leap between X-Men (2000) and X2: X-Men United (2003). Singer has trouble starting the engine, but when it finally turns over, he makes it purr. And after Superman Returns (a movie filled with payoffs to unseen setups and setups to unseen payoffs), Warner Bros took away his keys and made him call a cab. Superman Returns 2 would have been good, if not great. Oh well. Guess Singer should've put in a scene of Superman doing Catwoman and knocking Joker's teeth in. At least we'll always have Parker Posey as Kitty Kowalski.

I also watched some episodes of Superman: The Animated Series (1996-1999). I know the villain in Man of Steel is Zod, but there's no Zod episodes of STAS, so instead I watched "Blasts from the Past" and "Absolute Power," which are the episodes with Jax-Ur and Mala. Jax-Ur and Mala are basically Zod and Ursa/Faora. In fact, Sarah Douglas, aka Ursa from Superman II (1980), voiced Mala in "Absolute Power." I also watched "Knight Time," which is one where Batman goes missing, so to keep Gotham in check, Superman puts on the Batsuit and starts fighting bad guys as Batman. When is this gonna happen in a live action movie?

Tomorrow I see Man of Steel. I've been looking forward to seeing it for so long that I dread the idea of having seen it. Because there will be nothing left to look forward to. All the anticipatory thrill will be over, and I will enter a very deep depression, not unlike the Post Avatar Depression Syndrome (or PADS) of 2009, where moviegoers across the world had trouble coping with the intangibility of the dream of living on Pandora. Sure, maybe Man of Steel will be good, and I'll have fun thinking about it and talking about it (and blogging about it?) and eventually rewatching it. But nothing will be worse than that moment in the theatre when the movie ends, because that will be the absolute farthest point in my life from Man of Steel 2.

I heard they're gonna make a sequel.

Yesterday Deadline Hollywood reported that Warner Bros was officially "fast-tracking" a sequel to Man of Steel. It was not explained what "fast tracking" means in this case. I think the standard turnaround for a proper comic book movie is three years, and I wouldn't expect Man of Steel II before 2016. Does fast tracking mean two years? Is Man of Steel Returns coming out in 2015? This has not been announced yet. But they did say that Zack Snyder will be back as director and David S. Goyer will repeat as screenwriter, as part of his "3-pic deal" to do Man of Steel 1, Man of Steel 2, and Justice League 1.

Justice League 1 had previously been announced as their 2015 picture, but Snyder and Henry Cavill have been quoted as saying it would be a bad idea to follow Man of Steel 1 with a team movie. Snyder even said it would be like making an Avengers movie immediately after Iron Man 1. If he's making that comparison, can we assume Warner Bros might just do the Marvel movie plan of individual solo movies followed by the team movie? They had said before that (with the exception of Man of Steel) their plan was to do a reverse Marvel and make Justice League: The Movie first, and then spin off into individual hero adventures. This is a dumb plan and I do hope this news of a fast-tracked Man of Steel: Part II is a sign that they're just gonna copy Marvel.

Being five years behind Marvel is not a bad thing-- it's a GREAT thing. They have a unique opportunity to learn from what Marvel does right as well as what they do wrong. Making independent hero titles before the big crossover event was a good idea. But teasing the living shit out of the shared universe for five movies over four years was a bad idea. Iron Man 2, a somewhat underwhelming fast-tracked sequel that was made in two years instead of three, felt like a prolongued Avengers trailer when it came out. If Warner Bros can avoid this pitfall, there's nothing stopping the DC movies from being even better than the Marvel movies.

Maybe Warner Bros is afraid of people saying they're just copycats of the Marvels. To this, I cannot emphatically enough say-- who gives a shit? It doesn't matter who does it first, only who does it best. You know how Stan Lee and Jack Kirby got the idea to combine all their heroes into an Avengers comic book? THEY COPIED ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL BOOK CALLED JUSTICE LEAGUE OF AMERICA.

I anticipate Christopher Nolan's involvement is going to get smaller and smaller, so I hope they don't forget his winning approach. And I don't mean make a Nolan ripoff movie like Skyfall. I mean keep it simple. Don't go from a movie where one man is struggling with the fact that he's the last son of Krypton to a sequel where he's friends with a Martian, a Themysceran, a Thanagarian, an Atlantean, a lightning man, and a man with magic space rings.

Take baby steps. The first Justice League movie doesn't even need to have a huge roster. There's only one character you need besides Superman, and that's Wonder Woman. That's it, and that's only because you need a strong female. Everyone else falls under the category of nice, but not essential. If there had to be three, the third most important is Batman (S, WW, and B are considered "the big three"), but I think Warner Bros wants to let Batman breathe for a sec, so his immediate participation is not even for sure.

I'll give you the rest schoolyard pick'em style.

After the big three, you would want J'onn J'onzz (aka Martian Manhunter) because he's always been the best guy to have in the Justice League. He has awesome powers (shapeshifting, invisibility/intangibility, superstrength, flight, and fucking telepathy), and he just hangs around the JL Watchtower all day because he's the last remaining Green Martian and he's sad about his dead family and stuff. Also, he has no context for Earth society, so he morphs into a human detective and tries really hard to assimilate, but he doesn't get a lot of stuff and so you have a lot of opportunities for comedy. After him, I would go for Flash because he's a human with speed powers, so he's the closest thing to Batman for keeping the roster as grounded in reality as possible.

After that, I guess I'd go with Hawkgirl, Supergirl, Power Girl, Stargirl, Batgirl, or Huntress (so you get more girls in there). Then I'd go for a Green Lantern. In past days, he would've been higher on my list, but he's still on penalty for that shitty movie. I guess the logical GL would be Hal Jordan, because he's the current comic book Lantern and they like to keep that shit consistent, but for the sake of diversity, they could always go with African-American Green Lantern John Stewart, who was always great on the cartoon. Oh, and speaking of diversity, we're probably gonna get Cyborg in there. I don't mean that as a threat, just a likely fact. They bumped him up to the Justice League from the Teen Titans in the New 52. Cyborg is a black teenager with robot parts, and I'm just saying this is probably a thing you're gonna have to deal with in less than ten years.

I also fear they'll try to give us Aquaman. I don't dislike him, but I don't need him. Let's lose the dead weight, okay? Especially in the founding roster. Also, no Plastic Man or Elongated Man. No one stretchy.

That's basically the regular players, but I wouldn't be opposed to calling up some characters from the minors, like they did with Cyborg. B-listers like Green Arrow, although the last thing I'd want is for him to become the "Hawkeye" of the Justice League. Like, the loser that everyone hates. I would say Blue Beetle, but they probably wouldn't use my favorite (Ted Kord) because they'd want to go for the new Latino Blue Beetle Jaime Reyes. And I don't shrink from him because he's Latino. I just really dig the whole Ted Kord thing.

There's a shit ton of great second stringers like that. I like Booster Gold, but his origin (time-travelling football player abusing future tech to make himself a beloved superhero) might be too much. If Warner Bros plays their cards right, they will never run out of cool characters to put in. I would be very happy with someone like Crimson Avenger or The Question. Like, just one guy in a trench coat, please.

So that's my thoughts on a universe of limitless DC superhero solo and teamup movies. I hope they take their time and keep it simple, because the universe is going to get bigger over time no matter what. If anything, Marvel is going too fast. They're not gonna have room for all their characters pretty soon. They're sprinting, and what DC needs to do is sashay. But, first things first.

I hope Man of Steel is good.

The costume is different though.

One of the first things you may notice about Zack Snyder's Man of Steel (2013) is that the costume is different.

I went through this seven years ago with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns (2006). They released a picture of the new costume and it seemed wrong.  At the time, there was only one acceptable costume to me; the Christopher Reeve suit from Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie (1978).

Bright blue, with bright red trunks, boots, and cape. Basic S on the front with an all-yellow S on the cape, and a yellow belt. That's it. And aside from that yellow S on the cape (I actually prefer nothing on the cape), I saw no reason to fuck with it, because that was the iconic suit. "It's not the Batsuit," I said. Batman's costume is always different. In every comic book, TV show, and movie, there's always a hundred little changes to the Batsuit, and it's okay, because there's so many facets to that suit, and its real identity is in its essence. Does it have a pointy-eared cowl and cape? Is there a bat somewhere on the chest, and some kind of belt with containers? Good, that's the Batsuit. It doesn't have to look a certain way, just as Bruce Wayne doesn't have to look a certain way. His hair can be black or brown, and his face can pretty much look like anything. Superman's look was always simpler and more absolute, with very little deviation between incarnations. But that deviation, I came to realize, was always there, and just as with the bat guy and all the other superheroes, it's important that every version of that character have its own unique signature, as long as the essence of the character is preserved. So now I celebrate the changes. I like that I can associate every movie version of Superman with its own specific look, just like how I treasure the distinctive style of a Superman drawing by Jack Kirby, or Curt Swan, or John Byrne, or Frank Miller, or Tim Sale, or Bruce Timm, or Alex Ross, or Michael Turner, or Darwyn Cooke, or Adam Kubert, or Frank Quitely, or Jim Lee, or whoever. Vive la différence, as a French person might say.

I have a lot of fun noticing the variations between costumes. The costume designer for Superman Returns was Louise Mingenbach, who'd worked with Singer previously on the X-Men films. The smaller S was a Singer decision from day one. I guess big S's just aren't his "thing." And they decided to have it be a raised urethane S, because a stitched fabric S would have looked a little kinda off-model, which they felt was a detriment to the Reeve films. I can see what they mean. A raised urethane S looks perfect every time. They shrunk the neckline, which I don't like. I prefer the more open neck and wider anchor for the cape. They took the S off the cape for visual effects reasons, and the fact that it's hard to see anyway because it just gets lost in the folds. Again, I agree with this change. The cape should be solid and clean. No need to have it both front and back; he's Superman, not a kicker for the Jacksonville Jaguars.

Then there's the S on the belt buckle. This really threw me when I first saw it. It seemed redundant with the S on the chest. And I thought it was weird to have the S be yellow with a red backing (basically a reverse of the chest S), because I didn't get that it was actually just a yellow belt with no backing, and the red I was seeing was just the trunks underneath. I've since grown accustomed to the S on the belt, which they added because they felt the standard oval buckle was too bland; but given the choice, I would lose it. One S is all you need, and a second S anywhere waters it down. Of course, if you get real close, there's S's everywhere, like the entire thing is made up of tiny little S's. This is a good (or, at least, weird) way to give the suit texture. But the boot treads are just various large S's, which seems a little crazy. Then there's the colors. Mingenbach says that you can't have a suit with three bright primary colors because it's too much for the eye, and that it's better to just do one poppy primary color, and have the rest be muted shades to complement the primary. They decided to go with bright primary blue and muted red. I wouldn't want Superman to always look like this, but I agree in this case that the coloring looks good. Say what you will about Superman Returns-- fantastic colors all over that fucking movie.

The S is nice. It's almost the classic S, but smoother. And it's like a signature of Superman Returns, because that is the only time it was used. Well, that and Smallville. Smallville used the Superman Returns S whenever it needed to show the S. But that's part of it. Superman Returns came along halfway through Smallville's ten season run, so they are both a reflection of the same cultural time, except Smallville was modern teen Clark Kent taking a decade of labored steps to become Superman, and Superman Returns was time-ambiguous sequel to previous movie franchise Clark Kent as adult Superman, despite the fact that Brandon Routh was three years younger than Tom Welling (both at the time and still today).

The Man of Steel costume is even more different. It was designed by James Acheson, who did the Sam Raimi Spider-Mans and Daredevil; and Michael Wilkinson, who previously worked with Snyder on 300 and Watchmen. Where Singer embraced homage to a former Superman, Snyder wants to make a clean reboot all the way through. New music, new origins, new costume. Even the hair is different. This is the first movie Superman to make no effort at a spitcurl. Also, the hair's a little like Superman needs a haircut. Like, I can imagine a scene where Lois Lane ruffles Superman's hair and says, "Looks like you need a haircut," and then tries to give him a romantic haircut, which she can't because his hair breaks the scissors, but she can still give him a nice shampoo.

The S got bigger, made out of whatever kind of rubber the entire suit is made of. And there's only one S, which is great. The whole suit is textured, but the texture is not little S's; it's just like a regular texture texture. It's a great look, which probably ties into the suit's Kryptonian origins? I haven't seen the movie yet. Maybe the biggest change is the absence of the red trunks. This is a change they also made in the comics with the 2011 DC New 52 across-the-board reboot. Is it a good change? With difficulty, I can say, maybe. Because the trunks serve no purpose other than visual flare. The only reason they existed in the first place was to evoke the imagery of a circus strongman. And so you see, the biggest irony about the Superman costume is that it has become far more iconic as its literal self than whatever silly outdated bullshit inspired it.

Also gone is the belt, which, too, served no real utilitarian purpose (particularly without trunks). But there's still hints of a belt. Like, there's a buckle there, or a thing that looks like a buckle. This must be an extension of the swirly accents that adorn the waist, legs, and cuffs of the suit. Again, this is presumably Kryptonian aesthetic (I haven't seen the movie). And the colors are interesting, because it seems to be a play on the Mingenbach approach of muting all but one color, only this time, the lead primary is the red instead of the blue. My gut reaction on seeing it was that I preferred it the other way, but I should wait until I've seen it in action, in the context of its fully realized world. To be crystal clear, this is a movie I have not yet seen.

The new S is one we've seen before, in the Superman comics of the 1940s. It gels nicely with the aforementioned Kryptonian aesthetic presented in Man of Steel. I saw some t-shirts of this new S at the mall, and it made me realize that wearing a Superman shirt is no longer the singular statement it once was. Superman shirts used to be little beyond minor plays on the agreed-upon basic corporate S. But now there's enough S's where the S you wear says something more personal. "I like Man of Steel." "I like Superman Returns/Smallville." "I like the New 52." "I like Kingdom Come." I even saw a guy wearing a black-and-white George Reeves S, the implications of which are at least a 20 minute conversation. Personally, I can find something I love about every Superman that has ever been. And that kinda sucks, because now I have to buy like a hundred shirts.

What bad guys can they do.

It just occurred to me that certain Superman villains will not be appearing in the Man of Steel universe. Mainly because of this man:

Clearly Man of Steel is taking a significant cue from Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy (I shan't be calling it the Dark Knight Trilogy). And that is "real world" verisimilitude. Just as the tagline for Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie (1978) was "You will believe a man can fly," the subtextual tagline for Zack Snyder's Man of Steel (2013) seems to be "You will believe a Superman can exist for real." Unfortunately, this means they will only allow themselves to introduce a certain kind of villain. Just as Nolan's Batmans were limited to plausible human adversaries (Scarecrows and Catwomans), without the possibility of more implausible, well, monsters (Clayfaces and Poison Ivys). They even toned down the more fantastical aspects of the rogues they did use. Ra's al Ghul's literal immortality became more of a metaphor, Joker's bleached skin and rictus became practical make-up and scars, Bane's fictional supersteroid became an analgesic gas, Two-Face's impossible physical condition was contained in a short timespan, etc. And though Man of Steel is not in the same universe as the Nolan Batmans, and is indeed a more heightened reality by its very nature, we can assume a comparable approach will be taken.

The Man of Steel universe will allow itself villains who organically fit within the context of a Kryptonian world. Like, y'know, Zod. But I very much doubt we'll ever see villains in this universe who can do magic. Which means no Mr. Mxyzptlk. And that's a real loss. Mxyzptlk is a 5th-dimensional imp who fucks with Superman for kicks, and Superman is always at a disadvantage, because his biggest weakness aside from kryptonite is of course magic. This forces Superman to defeat Mxyzptlk every time using only his wits. And that's the fun irony of throwing magic into the mix-- the battle becomes psychological, and thus more grounded than, say, a superhuman fistfight in the sky. Which brings us to other aliens.

If Kryptonians like Zod can find their way to Earth (presumably through the Phantom Zone), we can talk about other extraterrestrial beings, like all-powerful despot Darkseid, gladiatorial ruler Mongul, or even hulking plot beast Doomsday (although Doomsday has also been portrayed as a manmade Superman deterrent, but we'll get to that in three paragraphs). Non-Kryptonian aliens are one more color away on the realism spectrum, so I wouldn't be surprised by their inclusion in this universe, nor by their exclusion. But there's a huge difference between accepting a "super man" and inviting down the entire goddamn Mos Eisley Cantina. So if I had to guess, I'd say probably no forthcoming bad guys from off-world. But let's do discuss Kryptonian tech.

Krypton had way better tech than Earth. So the introduction of Kryptonian tech to our society means quantum leaps in the field of robotics (as does, I suppose, the very existence of LexCorp). Does that mean we can get robot villains, like Kryptonian artificial intelligence Eradicator, insane astronaut Hank Henshaw (aka Cyborg Superman), or kryptonite-hearted cyborg man John Corben (aka Metallo)? This is another one I could see going either way. In a world where a man can shoot lasers from his eyes, is it crossing the line to have that man be attacked by a crazy robot? There's also Brainiac, which is both android and extraterrestrial, occasionally even portrayed as Kryptonian in origin, which would make him a viable option. But hopefully not, because he is boring. Next, we consider the straight-up cartoon supervillains.

Where is Man of Steel in terms of sci-fi monster villains, like energy-and-power-sucking Parasite, super genius ape man Ultra-Humanite, or exactly-what-he-sounds-like Kryptonite Man? These are like the everyday villains. You use them in a one-off. But I prefer them to a larger-than-life Earth swallower like boring Brainiac. There's something much more interesting about a thug who, by touching Superman, can temporarily steal his abilities and memories. It's a huge threat on a manageable scale. The only problem is that it breaks the realism rule. Even with Kryptonian tech, if a guy opens a radioactive waste container, he doesn't get mutant powers-- he curls up into a ball and bleeds from his eyeballs until his heart stops. So that tells me we're not gonna see Man of Steel trading barbs with talking gorillas anytime soon. The science behind the villain has to be accessible. Which brings me to one of my favorite groups.

Superman clones. Superman clones are always legit, because no matter what's happening, you can always clone a guy. So the door is wide open for Man of Steel to bring in a totally unique take on Bizarro, who would have to be played by Henry Cavill, as he is a botched identical clone of Superman. Or you could tweak the Bizarro concept and make a clone that doesn't look quite like Superman, such as Nuclear Man in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) or the Superman/Luthor test tube hybrid Superboy from the comics. My favorite alternate Superman was in Superman III (1983), when a synthetic kryptonite caused Superman to become overwhelmed with apathy, and he was basically A-Hole Superman. Like, he wasn't evil-- he was just an a-hole. He didn't care so much about helping people and instead spent time flirting with chicks, getting drunk, and fucking around with people. Now, he wasn't a clone per se (though he later inexplicably splits into two separate physical entities that fight each other), but I liked that take on a Superman.

Alternate Supermans are good for a franchise like Man of Steel, because they provide the hero with a balanced contrary force. That's why characters like Zod and Bizarro are so appealing. But there's another well brimming with alternate Supermans that I fear may be off limits under the Nolan realism mandate-- parallel universe Supermans, like Ultraman of the Crime Syndicate of Earth Three, Superman of the Justice Lords who one day snapped and just started lobotomizing villains with his heat vision, or the psychotic Superman-Prime whose home dimension was retconned, so now he wants this one. It's always nice to see a dark Superman, but I think dimension hopping is probably gonna be off-menu this time.

Of course, you still have Lex Luthor waiting in the green room, and if that's all you ever had, it would be enough. Luthor is the second-smartest man in the DC Universe, he has nigh-limitless resources, and he hates Superman. You could make ten movies off that alone, easy. But it does leave me buggin' to think that some of my favorite bad guys are likely gonna be benched for the sake of making the Man of Steel world believable. It's a movie about a man who can fly. I think you can make anything believable, if you treat it seriously. The Nolan Batmans didn't seem real because they shied away from crocodile men and freeze guns-- they seemed real because whenever something unbelievable happened, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman were there to react to it like human beings.

Now, maybe some of these doors will be opened if Man of Steel does indeed make the transition to a Justice League franchise. Because those guys all come from magic islands and intergalactic police squads, so now all of a sudden, something like Vandal Savage doesn't seem so weird.

Vandal Savage is an ageless immortal who has spent the past 52,000 years primarily murdering people. He and Superman are not friends.