Quentin Tarantino Got Superman All Wrong (But That May Have Been the Point)

by

In a different yet intriguing portrayal of the Superman character, Henry Cavill and David Corenswet demonstrate that people can interpret the Man of Steel in vastly distinct ways. Even Quentin Tarantino, an acclaimed director and comic book enthusiast, offered his unique take on Superman lore back in 2004 through the character of Bill, a notorious villain played by David Carradine in Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Towards the end of the film, Bill delivers a thought-provoking monologue on superheroes, zeroing in on the concept of secret identities, particularly as it applies to Superman.

In essence, Quentin Tarantino argues that Clark Kent, as portrayed in the Superman series, symbolizes an exaggerated representation of human vulnerability and weakness, as perceived by Superman. While many fans view Tarantino’s interpretation of Superman as flawed, others believe he hit the mark. Regardless of these opinions, it is clear that Tarantino intended to portray Clark Kent in this light. However, it’s important to note that Bill’s assessment may be incorrect, but that seems to have been the director’s objective.

Quentin Tarantino Isn’t Using Bill to Express His Own Opinions on Superheroes

Bill’s speech on the Last Son of Krypton is frequently perceived as reflecting Quentin Tarantino’s personal views, and it’s not hard to see why. Screenwriters often employ their characters to express their own viewpoints. However, while Tarantino has done this in previous works – the memorable Pulp Fiction speech by John Travolta about the European names for American fast food stemmed from a real-life trip the director took to Amsterdam – there’s no basis for assuming he adopted that approach when writing Kill Bill.

A more plausible explanation is that Bill’s belief that Superman views humanity with contempt and pity stems from his biased perspective of the world, rather than indicative of Tarantino’s understanding or lack thereof about comic books. To support this, let’s examine the broader context of the scene where Bill delivers his passionate speech on Metahumans. In this particular instance, Bill has administered a truth serum to The Bride (Uma Thurman), a former top-tier assassin who is now posing as a simple record store proprietor in rural Texas, in order to interrogate her about her choice to abandon her past life.

As I waited for the serum to kick in, I found myself launching into a soliloquy, much like any self-absorbed movie villain since the early days of cinema. Unlike revealing my sinister scheme, though, I opted to deliver a tirade about Superman and how his disguise as Clark Kent echoes Kiddo’s alias, Arlene Plympton. This so-called “murdering bastard,” as I referred to myself, argued that Clark Kent was nothing more than a costume Superman donned to blend in with us ordinary folks.

Bill explains that “Clark Kent represents how Superman perceives us.” He then discusses the main characteristics of Clark Kent from his perspective, stating that he is “vulnerable, uncertain, and fearful.” In Bill’s words, “Clark Kent is Superman’s criticism of humanity as a whole.

Bill makes a comparison by saying, “Similar to Beatrix Kiddo and Mrs. Tommy Plympton, he suggests,” emphasizing the similarity between Superman’s secret identity and what he refers to as Arlene Plympton’s disguise in suburbia – a mask for her true self, a ‘natural born killer,’ hiding beneath.

Tarantino Predicted Zack Snyder’s Take on Superman

It’s not an unusual perspective to consider Superman as a deity disguised among us ordinary folk, but the majority of comic book enthusiasts tend to differ from this view, even Quentin Tarantino. Despite being “cool” like many characters created by Tarantino, Bill is undeniably a villain at heart. It’s interesting that this antagonist assumes Superman views common people with disdain; perhaps he makes such assumptions because he himself does so.

From my perspective, I can only interpret Superman through the lens of my personal encounters. In my world, influential men often overlook or dismiss ordinary, blue-collar individuals like myself. Given this reality, it’s not hard for me to imagine an alien with immense power viewing humanity as mere insignificant creatures, much like cattle or ants. It’s plausible to think that Quentin Tarantino, in his creative process, wanted to subtly incorporate a captivating superhero theory he conceived during one of his showers into what many consider his masterpiece.

However, it’s important to note that we’re discussing a director who categorizes certain of his movies as set within a “cinematic universe,” which characters from his alternative “hyper-real universe” would watch at the cinema. In simpler terms, Quentin Tarantino’s work is often layered with such depth and interconnectedness.

There’s a Good Chance That Tarantino Understands Superman the Way Most Fans Do

It’s quite possible that Tarantino identifies with Superman in much the same way as many fans do. He recognizes that Clark Kent and Superman are simply two aspects of Kal-El, both genuine and crucial elements of the Superman legend. Superman could never look down on humanity because he would essentially be looking down on those who nurtured him, his loved ones, his friends, and above all, himself.

The next time you fully watch “Kill Bill,” bear in mind that the famous Superman speech isn’t Quentin Tarantino expressing his belief that Superman looks down on others, but rather the thoughts of a malevolent mastermind who believes everyone shares his skepticism and cynicism.

https://comicbook.com/movies/news/supermans-ending-explained-dcu-storylines/embed/#

Read More

2025-07-27 21:40