James Gunn’s Superman featured a big change to the character’s lore. Was it an effective reimagining of Clark Kent’s life? How fans feel about it will depend on how comfortable they are with a fundamental (though not totally new) alteration to Kal-El’s past. But no matter what you thought of it, this change will have big ramifications for the DCU’s future.
David Corenswet’s Clark Kent went through life believing his Kryptonian parents, Jor-El and Lara, sent him to Earth with noble intentions. The incomplete message they gave their son had greatly shaped Clark’s ethics and purpose. It seemed to indicate they didn’t just want to save his life by sending him to an alien world. They seemed to want him to use the powers he’d have there to make his new home a better place. That lined up with the traditional representation of Jor-El as an honorable person throughout Superman‘s history. That’s been true in every movie adaptation. Every Jor-El has been his world’s best person who also instilled a strong moral code in his son.
That was not the Jor-El of Gunn’s film. When the Engineer hacked into the Fortress of Solitude she was able to decrypt the rest of the splintered message. The whole world then learned a shocking truth. Jor-El wanted his powerful child to rule with an iron fist over the stupid people of Earth. He also instructed his son to form a harem so he could populate the planet with his offspring.
The revelation crushed Clark who questioned everything about himself. It also seemed to validate everything his enemies, both present and potential, feared about him. But Jonathan Kent, the Father who actually raised Clark, the man who helped teach his super son about empathy, compassion, and justice, reminded his child that a single message did not define him. His actions did. So although Kal-El and Lara proved to be very different people than Clark thought he knew, it didn’t change who’d he had grown up to be. Clark was super, but he was also human.
In the context of the movie this change was not only interesting it made sense for the story Gunn told. It successfully subverted expectations for a story that has been told countless time. It also contributed to one of the film’s best themes, that Clark Kent is as human as anyone else, just a nice kid from Kansas who believes in the best ideals of humanity. Having those ideals stand in contrast to his Kryptonian parents’ own intentions reinforced just how good and heroic Clark really is.
Yet, it’s also to easy to understand why longtime fans of both Superman and Jor-El would have an issue with such a fundamental change. Superman has always represented the best of two worlds, an idea that reinforces fundamental truths about what it means to be good. If right and wrong are the same on a distant alien planet as they are on Earth, they’re universal truths. Jor-El teaching his son to be benevolent also represented a special kind of hope for Earth. Jor-El, despite his best intentions, couldn’t save Krypton from its own mistakes. But rather than be bitter, he hoped his son could hopefully save Earth from a similar fate. There was/is great meaning in Clark Kent/Kal-El having two sets of parents that both taught him to be the best version of himself he could be.
Changing that, even if it didn’t change who Superman turned out to be (because Gunn essentially had his cake while eating it too via the incomplete message) does fundamentally change Superman’s story. That’s what made it shocking. But it wasn’t wholly new. On SmallvilleJor-El was presented as an Artificial Intelligence devoid of the morality Superman fans expect from the character. That was in part because the A.I. was incomplete and missing much of the actual Jor-El’s personality, but it was enough that Gunn’s movie was not the first time anyone saw the ill-fated Kryptonian as something other than a noble being. Just like with Corenswet’s Man of Steel, it didn’t stop Tom Welling’s from being a great hero.
If you liked this change is personal, but no matter how anyone feels it’s going to matter in the DCU. The film also introduced Milly Alcock’s Supergirl, Clark’s hard-partying Kryptonian cousin. James Gunn had previously warned us she’s “kind of a mess” and very different from her famous family member. He grew up in a loving household in Kansas. She spent the first 14 years of her life watching everyone on Krypton die. And after the Jor-El and Lara revelation, it’s obvious the DCU’s version of that planet was seemingly an even worse place than we thought.
Clearly Supergirl’s backstory will dramatically shape her story going forward in the franchise. She grew up among awful people on a doomed Krypton. It’s easy to understand why someone with that kind of history spends her time on red sun planets drinking her troubles away while her well-adjusted cousin is Earth’s greatest hero. But she’s not the only other Kryptonian we expect to see in the DCU. In a world where Jor-El was an amoral man, what will his son think of General Zod if/when he shows up?
In the DCU, Jor-El and General Zod won’t be natural enemies with opposing goals the way they’re almost always depicted. Zod will arrive with the same kind of message and purpose Jor-El gave his son. How will that undeniable truth influence Superman? What will it do to him emotionally? How will him and his cousin, who personally knows just how terrible Krypton was, deal with that?
You might love this hatable Jor-El. You might detest this version of the character. But either way, his unexpected message of oppression has made the new DCU a lot more interesting.
About The Author
