Anakin: Similarity with Kal-el

I'm sure I'm not breaking any ground here with this analogy but it just happened that I watched the special edition of Superman for the first time today, and haven't the seen any version of the film for many years, and some key moments in Anakin's development shared similarities in Kal-el's, if not necessarily in the same order:

- Identified at an early age as special - Anakin: high midichlorians; Supes: potential to be vastly superior in almost every way.

- A destiny that took them away from their mother - Anakin: to train as a jedi; Supes: leaving Krypton; leaving Smallville to go north, establish the Fortress of Solitude and discover his 'calling'.

- A death they feel they should have prevented - Anakin: Shmi's death; Supes: Jonathan Kent's death, leading them both to desperately...

- 'go off the rails' when faced with the death of another loved one - Anakin: goes against Yoda's teachings and succumbs to the Sith to save Padme; Supes: Goes against Jor-el's instructions and interferes with Earth's history to save Lois.


These were what I just found myself thinking subconciously whilst watching. I don't know enough about the overall story arc of Kal-el, but there are certainly instances in the next two superman films where he turns his back on the righteous path, not nearly to the same extent as Anakin, but I'm interested to hear that the plot of Superman Returns is based on him having left earth for some years and am interested in why this was and if there is to be any form of redemption, in line with Anakin's.

If anyone can enlighten me on the 'EU' of Superman I'll be interested to hear where the two heros are similar, or different, and if people feel Lucas was influenced by the comics/story of Superman specifically, as well as the overall trends that they both follow (re. Campbell's Heros of a thousand faces etc.).

 

interesting never thought of it that way

 

Funny, I was watching Smallville and thinking how similar Superman was to Luke.
both

Farm boys

Special powers

Orphans ( kinda) adopted by childless couple.

 

The difference being of course being how they chose to use their abilities.

 

You should read Joseph Campbell. He was a scholar of world mythology who spent his life researching various cultures and beliefs. He found what he held to be recurring patterns in many of the world's mythologies and eventually put these patterns into a framework he called "The Hero's Journey" or "monomyth".

Superman and Star Wars both conform to "The Hero's Journey" or "monomyth".

Campbell broke his monomyth down into three essential stages: Departure, Initiation and Return. It's appropriate that Lucas called the third film of his original trilogy, "Return of the Jedi", and chose a perversion of that (an earlier title for "Return of the Jedi") for the third film of his prequel trilogy, "Revenge of the Sith". The new Superman film is intended to be a continuation of "Superman II", making it the spiritual third in the series, and what does it happen to be called...?

 

When Richard Donner took over the project, he and writer Tom Mankewicz (sp) both decided that the way to approach the first two films was to give it a sense of realism. To use mythology as a means of telling the story. Hence why it seems like Kal-El was destined to become Superman and fight the Phantom Zone villians. They were playing around with mythological and religious undertones.

 

Superman: Somethings happening, I?m not the Kryptonian I should be.

 

Superman: (to Lois) I don't wanna hear any more about Jimmy Olsen! The Daily Planet turned against me! Don't you turn against me!!

 

The father-son motif of both sets of films is also interesting.

You could literally write a thesis on it.

 

Well, ok.

What's so interesting about Supe's father-son relationship (in relation to Anakin/Palpatine/Obi-Wan/Watto/Cleigg Lars)?

 

I know the stories of Smallville and the original Superman are greatly diverse in some aspects, but in the story of Smallville, Jor-El's intention when sending Kal-El (Supes) to Earth was for him to rule as a god among men, IIRC. Needless to say, Kal-El chose a different path than the one set by his biological father.

This can be compared to Anakin/Vader and Luke's father-son relationship. Luke possesses great gifts, and his father wishes for him to use them for evil, yet Luke chooses to take a different route.

Also, I find that the mother aspects in both Superman and Star Wars are similar. Kal-El's mother (Lora I believe was her name, correct me if I'm wrong) did not concur with Jor-El's intentions in using her son to rule Earth. You could say the same for Padme, had she been alive. She was against Anakin's intentions in turning to the Darkside and ruling the galaxy as husband and wife.

 

You're forgetting Qui Gon.

All of those people are father figures to someone else.

What's so interesting? Well, with all due respect, I believe that this is a subjective matter, but I personally find the idea that the two sets of films share the same motif interesting. To be more forceful in the efforts of avoiding the ambiguity my last remark evidently cultivated: it's not so much what is interesting or what is uninteresting about the motif within Superman, but rather, the very notion that it is an area that both sets of fantasy films explore. That is what I find fascinating.

Lara.

The "Smallville" paradigm is a clever inversion of the conventional Superman tale.

In "Superman: The Movie", Kal El is raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent to be a humble and loving person, and when he leaves with the green crystal and the Fortress of Solitude is built, Jor El imparts similar wisdom -- albeit on a grander scale. However, he also warns him not to interfere in human history, telling him that it is "forbidden". The "history" aspect in his monologue implictly refers to not interfering in socio-political affairs, but because the filmmakers were looking for a more emotional ending to tie the first film up, they devised the idea of Lois' death and had Superman more literally defying Jor El's instruction by reversing time itself. So Superman made a human choice and went against his biological father. This is a somewhat clumsy ending, since Superman pays no price for this action, but the sentiment is there and is the same as in "Smallville": he's his own person.

 

It wasnt so much that he'd be a " god " - at least as much as the TV show makes it out to be, and even thats not completely played out to its conclusion in Smallville. To Jor L its an almost apathetic, amoral matter of practicality - the people of Earth mean nothing to him compared to the survival of his son, for the yellow sun of the earth would act as the most viable energy source for Supermans Kryptonian biology in the known universe. This reasoning would not make Jor L as villianous as he's portrayed in Smallville, which as Ive already said hasnt played out as of yet and I believe is a red herring for dramatic purposes concerning the show. Kal ls' mother, Lara, main concern is that her son would be equally ostracized as he would be venerated. She's actually much more in tune in what would become of her son. Its theorized by a wide range of people who study Superman that Kryptonians were/are humans, highly evolved, and were the colonizers of Earth. This belief is certainly consistent with many ancient cultures beliefs ( Mayans, Babylonians, Egyptians ). Long story short I think the parrallel of Anakin and Superman isnt similarity in so much as almost complete dissimilarity between them. Contrarily, Luke and Clark are nearly the same archtype, very similar, and probably ranks amongst GL's many inspirations.

 

What's that Superman movie where Superman is in a junkyard and is fighting his Dark Self? (the was cool, btw). It can't be the one with Richard Pryor (where the Superman movies began sucking), and the video game crap (Nat, you got off so easy, babe), can it?

No, that was the one with the Nucular(sp.) Energy guy that Supes inadvertantly created when he threw all of the world's nuke warheads out into space.

Right?

Btw: what's that all about, anyway? lol

 

So did Anakin, Obi-Wan, Yoda, Mace, and the entire Jedi Council.

 

You know, it's funny how no one explained how Superman throwing that cellophane S-shield at one of the Phantom Zone villains fits into all of this.

 

didnt family guy just make fun of that?

i always thought the cellophane was so the three would underestimate kal-el...


okay that sounds stupid. i got nothin.

 

While I'd personally compare Luke with Kal-El more than Anakin, you did make some valid points. I never actually thought of all of that before.

 

"Live as one of them, Kal-El, to discover where your strength and your power are needed. Always hold in your heart the pride of your special heritage. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you... my only son."

I have nothing to add. I just love that dialogue.

 

Indeed.

"Superman: The Movie" has one of the greatest screenplays of all time.

 

"It's not that I don't trust you Otis..(pause..thinks)..Otis I don't trust you"
Lex Luthor - SUPERMAN THE MOVIE

 

Zod is very similar to Chancellor Valorum.

 

Aside from the actor playing them, the two have nothing in common. Zod was a despotic megalomaniac; Valorum was a well-meaning political stooge.

 

I think he was joking...

 

Maybe not.

For all we kow - and we know nothing of his knowledge of and/or afiliation with Darth Sidious, do we? If the rest of the Senate was controlled by the Dark Lord, why not the Chancellor as well? - Valorum may have been a Sith pawn, a false Sith Apprentice, like Asajj Ventress, just waiting in the wings to collect his Dark Side points and attain full Sith Mastership.

... or not.