September 14, 2011
Leadership Lessons from Superman's Underpants
After 73 years of wearing his underwear on the outside, why has Superman decided to abandon his briefs?
Tweet
For years I’ve been trying to help people see that popular consumer culture is a form of religion. It offers us a sense of value, identity, and context that traditional religions once provided. Similarly, pop culture has sacred symbols. How do I know this? Because when one of these symbols is altered the faithful will rise to protest the act of irreverence.
The Coca-Cola Company learned this lesson in 1985 when they released New Coke. And earlier this year when Gap changed their logo, hoards of angry white females rioted via social media. Gap relented and the retail deity’s image was restored.
The latest victim of pop-culture blasphemy: Superman. Photographs have leaked from the production of Warner Brothers’ new film Man of Steel showing actor Henry Cavill wearing a blue Superman suit without red trunks. When the film debuts in 2013 it will be the first time the character is depicted on screen without the red under(over)pants. Nerds are enraged.
The question I have is this: After 73 years of wearing his underwear on the outside, why has Superman decided to hide his Hanes?
I did a little snooping and discovered that when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman in the 1930s his design was derived from two sources–science fiction comics and circus strong men. The former gave Superman his blue one-piece uniform (all advanced societies wear one-piece uniforms, it’s a Hollywood fact), and the latter his red Speedo. The look has remained largely unchanged for seven decades–including five feature films.
But when Warner Brothers handed the responsibility for penning a new Superman script to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, the same team behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, they wanted to bring the same realism to the Man of Steel they had brought to the Caped Crusader. But the Superman character, unlike Batman, is utterly unrealistic. He’s an alien who can fly, repel bullets, and fire lasers from his eyes. If we are to accept all of that, is it really too much to ask a modern audience to believe Superman would wear red underwear over his pants?
Yes, it is.
At least that was the filmmakers’ conclusion, so they ditched the drawers. Now fanboys’ panties are in a bunch over the decision and they’re tearing up chat rooms and message boards about it. Online petitions have even started to pressure Warner Brothers to return the super shorts.
What lessons can we learn from the skirmish over Superman’s skivvies? Here are a few thoughts:
ONE: Don’t underestimate the power of symbols
The strong reaction to Superman’s costume change is coming from a community that is highly invested in the character. To many of them he represents something iconic, good, pure, and nostalgic. Some hold Superman to be a patriotic symbol in the same category as the Stars and Stripes and George Washington. He stands for “truth, justice, and the American way.” For others, and I must put myself in this category, he is a symbol of childhood that triggers positive memories of backyard action figure battles and treks to 7-11 to buy comic books.
When we invest symbols, like Superman, with this kind of meaning and significance, we expect them to remain timeless and unchanging. They serve as vessels that hold something precious–our nation, our childhood, our memories. And the permanence of these symbols only increases in weight as cultural changes accelerate. So when the symbol itself changes–by having his underwear removed, for example–the values and memories we associate with it suddenly feel insecure or worse, attacked. One of the fixed points of reference in our universe unexpectedly shifts, and we lash out at the person who moved it.
In your leadership, if you face an unexpected backlash for what you thought was a minor change, you may have underestimated the identity-value of the thing you changed. It may seem silly to you, but the power of symbols is very real to those invested in them.
TWO: One generation’s “cool” is another’s “creepy”
During the Great Depression when Superman made his comic book debut, the popular culture was familiar with circus acts and their flamboyant costumes. The strong men that inspired Siegel and Shuster to put red trunks on their Superman were admired by school boys for their heroism and daring acts of strength. Fast forward four generations, and school boys today aren’t going to circus side shows anymore. And the once innocuous red knickers now draw snickers (try saying that three times quickly).
If we are seeking to lead multiple generations, either simultaneously or over time, we must be mindful to not infuse highly-contemporary symbols with meaning. Otherwise, when cultural norms change, and they always do, we will either be ill-prepared to lead younger people or face the painful and traumatic process of divesting meaning from older forms. Many of the “worship wars” seen in congregations can be attributed to this tendency.
A better option is to use much older symbols that are largely immune to the whims of popular culture. Consider church buildings. No one enters a Gothic cathedral or Puritan meeting house and says, “Uh, this is so out of style!” Those forms are so old that they get a pass, and may actually be admired for transcending the ever-shifting trends of the culture. But a facility that may have been designed to be highly relevant in 1985 is another matter. And if your church is determined to stay on the leading edge of technology in worship, be prepared to shell out enormous amounts of time, money, and energy for decades to come (and with a diminishing return, if my guess is right).
THREE: Sometimes compromise is just dumb
When Warner Brothers decided to scrap Superman’s shorts, they were actually following the lead of DC Comics. Earlier this year DC announced a reboot of the Superman storyline with a redesigned character. Their contemporary take on the Man of Steel also had no red trunks, but to retain some aesthetic link to the past, and to avoid nerd-fury, they gave Superman a red belt.
It didn’t work. Fans still freaked out about the loss of the undies, and others questioned the purpose of the belt. Why does he need a belt if he doesn’t have any pants? And unlike Batman, whose utility belt holds his gadgets, Superman doesn’t carry accessories. By compromising DC Comics neither pleased fans nor advanced the character’s realism. By dodging the bolder decision they actually created a bigger mess.
I’m not saying compromise is always bad (heaven knows we could use a little more of it in Washington DC from time to time). But leaders need to be discerning enough to know when compromise is actually a chocolate covered turd–it may look good on the outside, but take a bite and you’ll regret it.
In my opinion, Zach Snyder was smarter than DC Comics when he not only ditched the red underpants for his Superman movie but also lost the belt. He is sticking to an internally consistent and plausible narrative. Superman is an alien with an alien suit–no belt is necessary.
FOUR: The people, not leaders, decide what’s important
The first official image released by Warner Brothers of Henry Cavill in the new Superman suit was a tease. The studio wanted to create positive buzz for the film, particularly after their last Superman movie in 2006 was considered a letdown by fans. The photo showed a grittier, more aggressive Man of Steel the fans had been hoping for. But the photograph kept part of Superman’s midsection hidden in shadow. Speculation began immediately about whether or not he would retain the red trunks.
WB may have calculated that a clear photo showing the costume change would have distracted both fans and the media from the message they intended to convey–that Superman is back and ready to rumble. And they may have hoped to delay the inevitable backlash by the nerds. But by keeping part of the suit hidden, it only kept fans guessing and distracted from what Warner Brothers intended to communicate. By not wanting the underwear to become the story, it actually became the story.
Ultimately the people will decide what’s important and not the person with the microphone. President Obama, for example, has learned through plummeting poll numbers that while he wanted to talk about health care reform, the rest of country wanted to focus on unemployment. And Anthony Weiner may have wanted to talk about reforming the financial sector, but everyone else wanted to discuss his Twitter pics. Bill Hybels is fond of saying that the first job of leaders is to define reality. But doing that means taking the time to listen to the people and what they’re saying is important.
So, there are four leadership lessons I’ve taken from the controversy surrounding Superman’s underpants. What do I think about the decision to abolish the briefs? I will withhold my opinion until I see the movie. In the end, if it’s a great script with strong acting and fantastic action, I will forgive this blasphemy against my childhood hero. Good storytelling covers a multitude of sins.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga on September 14, 2011
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/6105
Comments
One of the first things European kings from the 7th-to-16th centuries learned was never, ever go against popular piety.
To do so was to put one's throne at risk.
Hence, the use of relics...oh, those nebulous ties to the past, much like our comic book heroes of today reminding us of yesterday, so to were those silly relics.
Bone's, cups, pieces of the cross...all served as expressions of religious piety, and making a hadj to see one was a life-time event.
The problem is...knowing when to let go...knowing when to grow up.
As Paul said, knowing when to put the things of the child aside, and think like an adult.
Symbols are powerful reminders of early experiences for adults...even I get a little nostalgic when I see movies like Fantasia, or toys like GI-Joe, but herein is the key...they're just things of my past, like a sweet memory, but in my past they should remain as I am an adult now; And the demands of adulthood mean I must think and behave like an adult...not like a child, whose thoughts are only of themselves and what makes them happy.
Posted by: sheerahkahn at September 14, 2011
And, lest we forget, his Mom knitted his suit from his Kryptonian blankie. An impervious suit for the Man of Steel.
Posted by: Mike at September 14, 2011
What's interesting about Supes new comic book costume is that DC didn't get rid of the trunks. If you look closely, the trunks are now blue.
DC wasn't so gutsy as to remove the trunks altogether.
They knew the trunks were an iconic part of Superman's image - and of superheroes as a whole.
Little else says 'superhero' than big muscles, a cape, knee high boots and a pair of trunks. Add a lightning bolt or a swoopy letter on the chest and your done!!!Superman's costume (with boots, cape, chest symbol and trunks) became the default outfit for future superheroes.
Those style elements (which were once linked to circus strongmen) are now permantly re-linked to the American superhero.
And this is why I think its a mistake to remove the red trunks from Superman.
I agree with you that Supes costume is a "symbol of childhood that triggers positive memories of backyard action figure battles and treks to 7-11 to buy comic books."
I would add that the original Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster costume also represents every superhero ever created since Action Comics #1.
The suit screams 'superhero'.
If any character can wear a skin tight one piece (with a bold, stylized letter emblazoned on the chest) with contrasting trunks, matching cape and knee high boots, it's Superman.
Posted by: Ellery at September 14, 2011
I never would have thought that shorts could be so thought-provoking. A very good article.
But, "...chocolate covered turd..."? A very poor choice of words, IMHO.
One thing I've learned is that everything here 'below' is transitory and rather ephemeral. And we need to realize there are few 'fixed points' and we must be quick to respond to the inevitable unexpected shifts in our lives.
How right you are to highlight the absurdities of relying on the 'highly-contemporary'. Today's fads become the best friends of tomorrows comedians.
What undefinable distinguishes faddish kitsch from art? What is it that changes looking 'at' to looking 'into', simple sex to something divine, material objects into 'art'?
Is it perhaps God's timeless presence?
Posted by: steven w. at September 14, 2011
The whole flap strikes me more as a metaphor for how we Christians focus on minor, impermanent things, like organs versus guitars in our worship music, rather than on the more important things like the relationship with Jesus and charity towards all. Does the lack of trunks mean that it's not an authentic Superman movie?
Posted by: K.W. Leslie at September 14, 2011
Great post, Skye. And I think I agree with K.W. Leslie when I see this as another example of majoring on the minors. I mean, it's still Superman. He's still going to leap tall buildings in a single bound and all that.
On other hand, I'd probably feel differently if I were more heavily invested in the Superman franchise, emotionally or otherwise.
But hypothetically if in 2019 someone were to decide to remake The Matrix and none of the principals wore black leather or sunglasses... well, now, I'd be picketing up a storm as well.
Posted by: Jelani Greenidge at September 16, 2011
"Nerds are enraged."
Yes, we are.
"Warner Brothers handed the responsibility for penning a new Superman script to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, the same team behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight"
Hopefully they won't have this Superman talking as though he has a mouthful of marbles the way Batman did in The Dark Knight.
"He’s an alien who can . . . fire lasers from his eyes"
Well, technically they're not lasers but heat beams, hence "heat vision". Oh, and while I'm at it, and his belt DOES contain something, namely his Justice League of America (JLA) communicator. (See my previous comment re: enragement)
Anyway, you (perhaps deliberately) overlooked something: that often, especially in Hollywood and particularly with comic book characters, the changes are made simply so that the creative forces behind the movie can make the character "theirs". It frustrates people is because what the Hollywood folks are doing is similar to a dog urinating on a fire hydrant: it's just a way of marking their "territory" and in this particular case the "hydrant" is one many of us are very fond of.
Posted by: Brett at September 22, 2011
What an interesting article. To through in lessons that can be learned from the rioting that is occurring at the loss of Superman's shorts.
I wanted to comment on a few of the leadership points that you brought out in the article.
First off you mentioned the idea of a symbol, I thought that it was a unique point that needs to be analyzed in ministry situations. Often times when we remove something from the daily swing of things you get a lot of complaining. People are use to that solid foundation and reluctant for change. However, I do think that things do need to progress as things change within the individuals in the church. Not saying we let culture reorganize the church, but that we are aware of the cultural shifts that are happening. We do this so we can make the best attempt to share the Good News of Jesus Christ to a hurting people. I understand your point of changing things, as the story illustrated changing the plot of Superman and his briefs is not a well received notion.
The third point you made on compromise is quite interesting. When we are in leadership roles within the church we are to make the decisions that need to be made following the guidance of God. If we fail to be the leadership that the church needs, and let individuals who are not of that authority make decisions it is going to be an interesting downhill roller coaster ride. There's a fine balance between listening to the ideas of the congregation, as opposed to following every move they make. For instance one of my professor's talked about an elder board that would just compromise with a Senior Pastor in everything he would say (Regardless of the situation being presented) The senior Pastor was running the showing and the Elder Board was not following through with their job that they are required to fulfill. They just compromised and gave up their job in order to lay the responsibility on the lap of another individual who was not following a Godly lifestyle. I agree with your statement that leaders need to be careful of compromise, and that they need to discuss things on a deep level rather than just following the lead of another individual.
Thanks for sharing, I appreciate your ability to take something buzzing in the news and turning it into something that we can learn from and incorporate into ministry.
God Bless!
Oh and I say keep the shorts =)
Posted by: Jeremy at September 22, 2011
I loved the article and Im one of those fans who is upset with the costume change design for the new film. Visually the suit won't look the best. Just because they want to modernize an icon doesn't mean they have to take a piece of him that has been part of it's essence since it was created. Look at Mc Donald's Ronald Mc Donald. It's the same icon but with a different hairstyle not far from the original look. The same goes for KFC's Coronel Sanders: They modernized the look without taking his glasses off, or his beard or his clothing. It was enough by just changing the texture of the suit and the shield. But when I saw the pictures of the weird tribal patterns on his trunks and legs area I was very upset. It looked like a generic superhero who happened to wear the Superman shield.
I think visually, this Superman will look a bit dissapointing with the change in the new suit (trunkless).
Posted by: Django at September 26, 2011
Also of interest... the recent kerfuffle over Wonder Woman's costume, specifically her pants. She's back to the iconic shorts.
Looking at the new Justice League, none of them have shorts, just full jerseys. Shorts... it doesn't matter... the icons, the sigils, that's what gives the heroes power. Both for identification (just like St. Bartholomew's skin) and storytelling.
Myself, I'd like to see someone draw Superman with JUST the red shorts, like Wonder Woman's costume. He's invulnerable, just like WW, so why not a pure strongman jersey?
And... just like the Reformation, some will stay with the "old" and some will move to the "new". The old comics still exist. Superman is still Superman. The stories change, but the character endures, partly by reinvention.
Posted by: Torsten Adair at September 26, 2011
Very thoughtful article and some very insightful threads drawn to matters of faith. Tracked this from Comic Book Resources (CBR) and was pleased to see a fellow level-headed Christian comic nerd putting out such a great message.
Posted by: Dave at September 27, 2011
Great thought-provoking article! I appreciate that first and foremost.
And my favorite comment....from Brett! LOL! I loved the "utility belt" correction. Comic nerds in the Kingdom: UNITE!
Posted by: bil_ at September 28, 2011
I guess you could say that if you get to the bottom of it, Superman's underwear is causing a falling out. And that's the news in brief!
Posted by: Jerry Thacker at December 16, 2011
Enraged? ENRAGED? Enraged? Not really. They are just shocked and stuck in the past like the FLDS fashion sense. This is a GOOD move forward for Superman anyone who doesn't see this needs to wake up and smell the roses.
Posted by: Happy the trunks are Gone at January 25, 2012