Superman Sells Papers

I picked up a copy of the Deseret Morning News today, because I saw the following headline above the fold: "Heavenly Hero? Utah religious leaders worry about Superman's morals E1."

I read the article and felt that it was one of the most poorly written puff pieces I've ever read. It didn't belong in a newspaper. On the other hand, the headline did get me to buy the paper.

The Headline leads me to believe that there is this giant outpouring of hatred against the movie, and yet the article quotes one religious leader who thought the movie was pretty good anyway. His problems were predictable: Lois is living with a man out of wedlock, Superman and Lois had a child out of wedlock, maybe the Christ analogy was a little much, the promotion of "the world doesn't need a saviour" angle, the lack of Superman standing for the "American Way."

But, since the article can't keep steam up on it's topic (that was clearly handed to a staff reporter by an editor who thought it might make a juicier story than it was) it just starts mentioning websites and their urls that have also written pieces about the correlation between Superman and Christ. That, I think, was the worst part of the article. That they took the precious space in a newspaper to print four urls. Four urls. I can understand spending a sentence at the bottom saying that there are links available in the online version, but a newspaper, in my opinion, shouldn't be printing random-ass urls through the text of an article. It seemed as though the reporter was just picking long urls to take up space because she knew her article sucked and she needed to take up space.

I don't know.

Read the article and tell me if I'm imagining it to be as bad as I think it is.

(also, to answer the worries of the religious leaders: Lois living with a guy? Who cares. It's none of your business. Child out of wedlock? Same answer. Bugged that Superman was Christ? So was E.T. and Budha and a hundred other characters in various films and mythologies. I mean, Christ wasn't even the first. The movie promoted the lack of need for a saviour? Hey dumbasses, that was the crisis in the beginning of the movie. They needed him by the end. They should have said he stood for the American Way? Fuck you. Superman doesn't stand for what the Christian Conservatives have turned it into. Superman doesn't "strike pre-emptively" or consider civilians "collateral damage" or start wars unprovoked. Superman was all about the American way up until Reagan was president. Or maybe even Nixon. It would be insulting to tell Superman he stood for the status quo of the "American Way.")