"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!" -- Homer Simpson

There's little evidence that the Superman character was originally visualized as a Jesus Christ-substitute of sorts by his original creators in the 1930's--since in his initial form Superman couldn't fly, nor was he completely invulnerable to weaponry.

Nevertheless, in his later incarnations—especially in movie form starting with the original “Superman” in 1978 to the recent 2006 “Superman Returns”--Superman has been ‘re-imagined’ as a “Christ-figure” with many (undoubtedly intentional) parallels.  (Not least of which is his father Jor-El who watches Earth from afar,  and sends his "only Son" there to be the "light that shows others the way".)

Superman undoubtedly is *the* iconic comic book hero of the last century, and part of his appeal (perhaps not coincidently) also relates to the similarities to Jesus Christ:  he’s both all-powerful...and fundamentally good at the same time.  Superman is human like us…sort of, but very different at the same time.  He (like Christ) represents less who we are now, but who we aspire and hope to be like in the future.

(The Superman films’ annoying habit of inventing new powers for Superman out of the blue can be excused for just this reason—we identify with Superman primarily as someone who can do all things, especially things we can't.   We want him to be able to solve any crisis that requires ‘superhuman' power without limiting his abilities for the sake of ‘realism’.   Superman is intentionally designed not to be ‘realistic’, but rather an extension of our most basic fantasies…)

It’s interesting to note the ways in which the idea of Superman departs from Jesus Christ in terms of how we look at a "Savior" or a "Messiah".

The original concept of a "Messiah" for the house of Israel was much more like the 'Superman' ideal than Christ himself ended up being.  The “Messiah” was envisioned as an all-powerful being who would cleanse the world of 'wrong-doers' and ease the physical suffering of the 'good' people--providing righteous justice to an unjust world.  When Jesus did arrive as the Messiah, He, in fact, did NOT provide 'justice' in the form of freeing the Jews from Roman oppression as thought, but rather 'mercy' through the Atonement.

“If this man WAS the Messiah," some undoubtedly thought, "shouldn’t he be going around punishing the Romans and other ‘wicked’ people, instead of preaching to us about what *we*--God's chosen and covenant people--need to do to be closer to God?”
 
The creation (or rather, transition) of Superman as a 'Christ-figure' that dispenses righteous justice instead of universal mercy may have been born of this same idea that kept the early Jews from recognizing the "Messiah" in their midst in the first place:  Most people--even Christians--sort of prefer the idea of a God-like entity who protects the innocent from harm, and directly punishes those who are 'evil'.  Abstract concepts such as 'sin forgiveness' and 'final judgment beyond the veil’ may very well be true, but can be fundamentally unfulfilling to mortal minds, who wants the wicked to receive their just desserts NOW, not later.  Superman the character, taken as a direct parallel to Christ, seems to be based primarily off of this 'alternate-Messiah' idea:  justice first, mercy later...

Asking "Does the world need Superman?" and "Does the world need Jesus Christ" are, thus, completely separate and distinct questions.   The Savior provided, through the Atonement, the more pressing and universal need for a Messiah to save us from sin.  Since He did NOT at the same time act as Messiah in the generally hoped-for form, saving the people of Israel from oppression, this seems to indicate--assuming, as is logical, that Christ could have done both at the same time had He wanted to—that mankind does not actually NEED a secular Messiah that badly.   Does the world really need a more "worldly" Savior, like Superman, to save us from criminals, natural disasters, and such?

The question is asked in the latest movie incarnation “Superman Returns” (the remainder of the article will discuss various plot elements if you haven’t seen it, but no major spoilers). In it, Superman has departed from Earth for a period of several years while he looks for his lost homeworld of Krypton.   In the meantime, Lois Lane asks this very question, “Does the world need Superman?” and writes an award-winning article that says, basically, “No, we don’t…”

Later in the movie, after he returns, Superman responds to Lois's assertion by saying: "You say the world doesn't need a Savior, but every day I hear people crying out for one."

Now, this shows that people WANT a Savior, sure--but not whether the world truly needs a Savior in the secular sense...  Is the world better off without having a supreme being who flies in and saves (certain) people from tragic circumstances?    How does having Superman around alter actions and philosophies in life?

Jor-El himself in the original "Superman" movie notes that his biggest fear in sending his son to Earth in the first place was that mankind would start to depend on him, and not do things they could have done themselves.     In "Superman Returns" we never do get to hear what Lois's actual arguments from her article were, but one can probably assume they are along the same lines:  we (humans) are the cause of the vast majority of our problems, and we can and should be the solution too, without waiting for an divine 'babysitter' to swoop down and fix things.

Many, when asked about the role of God in their lives, seem to expect divine hands to swoop down and save them from disaster...but also expect, without irony, to be left alone all other times to do whatever they want.  Superman should stop terrorists from blowing people up, for example, but should leave people alone to (as in Lois's case) smoke cigarettes without judgment.   Morality is absolute when it comes to other people, relative when it comes to themselves. 

"Superman Returns" presents an interesting case study in this regard:  later in the movie, Lois and her son are kidnapped by Lex Luthor and company and taken to an offshore yacht.  After discovering they are missing, Lois's boyfriend Richard--James Marsden's character--has a choice to make.   It would have been very easy for him to simply say to himself, "Well, I'm sure Superman will save them..." and do nothing, especially given Superman and Lois's 'friendship'.

Significantly, though, he didn't just sit around and hope Superman cleaned things up.  Richard, in fact, immediately ran out and flew his own plane out to sea to do what he could to save his family.  In a very real way, Richard showed a bravery and goodness that exceeds anything Superman can do, since Richard made his choice without having the natural ability to fly or invulnerability to fall back on in case of trouble.

It's possible, though, that Richard is the exception that proves the rule:  would most people in similar dire situations have done the same, or just have been content to wait for Superman to save the day?   Note that in a world without Superman, they no longer have the latter option...  (See this earlier discussion about the problem of evil, and how divine guidance influences behavior)

Do we need a "Superman", someone to use their omnipotent power to save us from tragedy and struggle?  Or is having a "Savior" who allows us to obtain our full eternal potential good enough?   Perhaps we'll stick with Jesus Christ as the true "Messiah", and save Superman for the realm of fiction and fantasy when we look to the sky for someone to swoop down and heal all our pain.