All Things DCEU News, Discussion, and Speculation - Part 5

[The Guard]

He didn't exactly overshadow the other heroes in JUSTICE LEAGUE, or in BVS, why would he here?

No one has said he would come in and help save the day, the rumor is that he will have short but memorable appearances. No one said he's going to be fighting other heroes battles for them or anything along those lines.

Superman's presence can easily compliment the hero of a movie without overshadowing them. Odds are good that we won't see too much high stakes action from Superman until say, perhaps SHAZAM 2 (perhaps a team up to oppose Black Adam). He'll probably be used as an inspirational figure for the most part. He might travel to Atlantis to consult with Arthur after he becomes king in AQUAMAN, Kingdom Come style. Or to Themyscira to talk to Diana. Or his appearance could be as simple as a really cool feat on television in the background, etc. It's a great way to flesh out his relationships with other characters since there wasn't much of that in JUSTICE LEAGUE, and may not be for a while.

And SHAZAM is probably the BEST film to begin this approach with, because of their similarities and the potential for Superman to directly inspire Billy and mentor him.

 

[Johnglen]

TBH, I am bored with Superman films having either general Zod or lex Luther as the villain esp. the comedic Luther we have got on every film, even BvS. Just make a Superman movie with a “colorful” comic book villain like brainiac or something , for a change. Hell I remember ,as a kid, actually liking the fact that Superman 4 , of all movies, had a freakin villain that looked like a comic book villain and a threat to Superman. Yep even that terrible film had given me some entertainment with nuclear man.

 

[FunkMiller]

It's not complicated. Superman can't stick around because he's needed somewhere else. The end.



Not even close. Thanks for the presumptuous psychoanalysis, though. I am basing my assessment on Superman as a character and as an IP on my decades of investment in the character across all forms of media. Superman has been constantly reinvented. He's been returned to nostalgia and turned into an existential hero. His origin story has been told and retold and retold and retold ad nauseum. Every possible permutation of the character has been kicked around in the last two decades from creators who range from hack to genius alike. Not a single one has endured. I've loved many and hated some of these iterations, and so have many others. But nothing has hit the mark; there is no consensus. That's not a fan of Snyder's films talking. It's a fan of Superman.

I take it from this comment that you believe Snyder failed just as much as all those other iterations, then?

 

[OutOfBoose]

Superman cameo in various films is a HORRIBLE idea. Either make Superman important for the story, or don't go further than a photo on a billboard.

 

[The Batman]

Thanks for the presumptuous psychoanalysis, though.

This post is like Lindsay Lohan telling someone that they have a drug problem.

 

[Superchan]

Its not just films though, Superman, as character has been struggling in all forms of media for decades. Superman as a character just hasn't caught fire like his pointy eared teammate since the 70's. I'm not at all saying there's an issue with Superman or that the character is broken, not at all, but perhaps there should be wider conversation as to why writers for comics, tv, and film seem to struggle with the character and not make him popular again. It's undeniable that before MoS, public sentiment towards the character was that he was old fashioned and corny, why is that and what led Superman as a multi-media IP to get to that point?

Again with this 'superman isn't popular/doesn't sell' nonsense.

If I remember correctly Superman II was in the 80s and it was a blockbuster hit and Batman only started overshadowing superman in 89 when his movie came out, before then Batman was synonymous with the Adam West cheese fest.

On TV Superboy, L&C and Smallville were all quite popular and successful.
In animation Superman doomsday animated movie is the still the highest selling of the DC animated movies (sold more than both dark knight returns movies combined!).
In comics Superman:earth one V1-3 were all in the NY times top seller list!

Superman has always been popular and has always sold well despite the projects that I listed above were of questionable quality and I keep repeating the fact that MOS -a reboot- sold over 129 million in ticket sales on it's opening week! Week IPs don't do that.

The general public's perception of superman isn't that he's old fashioned or corny, that perception applies to teenagers and young adults maybe but generally speaking superman is viewed as an icon but because of the seemingly endless crappy films that he's gotten since superman III most people don't really care either way about the character.
All IPs require a regular injection of quality to continue to succeed and superman hasn't had a good movie since 1981! That's what got Superman as a multi-media IP to get to that point.

 

[Tg11]

I think Superman cameoing in Shazam is a good idea. Shazam is basically a kids movie for superheroes if you think about it. A kid with magical powers turns into an adult superhero literally just by saying one word that being SHAZAM. Superman can then mentor this kid much like how Tony Stark is helping to mentor or has helped to mentor Peter Parker/Spider Man.

 

[Flint Marko]

But since there's nothing to compare it to (all Superman movies after the first have struggled), then one can't really say. Not to mention it's not as simple as steak, because most could agree on what cooked/overcooked steak is. There's a lot of different opinions on what is wanted in a Superman film, so it's tricky to find the right recipe.

We can compare it to the dozens upon dozens of wildly successful superhero movies that have come out in the past few years and find that Superman movies fall very, very short.

I won’t pretend that making a Superman movie is an absolute cake walk, but Superman Returns or anything with Cavill is a really really low bar to clear.

 

[STARMAN]

You give the audience bad movies and you will get negative reactions. Look at Superman III though JL and the consumer response is appropriate considering the product they were given. Deliver a better product and you will get a better consumer response.

 

[The Guard]

Making a well executed movie is not easy, but conceptually, I just don't think it's that complicated a fix. For general audiences, Superman needs to be likeable and the movie needs to be fun. WB seems to have learned the lesson, as evidenced by the last minute attempt to fix Superman with JUSTICE LEAGUE, and rumors about the nature of future appearances.

It was unfortunately a hard lesson to learn, and took three films (SR, MOS and BVS).

 

[FunkMiller]

You give the audience bad movies and you will get negative reactions. Look at Superman III though JL and the consumer response is appropriate considering the product they were given. Deliver a better product and you will get a better consumer response.

Absolutely. The argument that Superman movies aren’t popular because Superman isn’t popular is pathetic. It’s because all of those movies have been either poor, or downright terrible. Every single one of them. None of this is Superman’s fault. It’s the fault of the creatives tasked with bringing him to life in live action.

 

[chamber-music]

Superman is fine. There is a audience for the character if he is in a well made movie with an engaging portrayal.

 

[misslane38]

I take it from this comment that you believe Snyder failed just as much as all those other iterations, then?

I've never suggested otherwise, so yeah. Look, just because I like them and they hit the mark for me doesn't mean I'm blind to how the films were received by others. The New 52 had fans who hated Rebirth. Some crave more Lois and more romance in Superman movies while some want Lois dead. My point is that the difficulty achieving consensus is, to me, a sign of how tricky it is for storytellers to deliver a successful Superman film. There are a lot of expectations and preconceived notions that other characters simply don't have to deal with, which often causes extreme disappointment and anger.

This post is like Lindsay Lohan telling someone that they have a drug problem.

Not really.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I just don't agree that it's so hard to please Superman fans. I think most of us agree that we want a lighter, more optimistic, and fun portrayal of Superman. The people that want a dark and gritty Superman are the people who think he needs to be fundamentally changed to be interesting. Those people aren't fans.

 

[misslane38]

Absolutely. The argument that Superman movies aren’t popular because Superman isn’t popular is pathetic. It’s because all of those movies have been either poor, or downright terrible. Every single one of them. None of this is Superman’s fault. It’s the fault of the creatives tasked with bringing him to life in live action.

It is Superman's fault. It's Superman's fault because, as a character, he can't seem to attract filmmakers who can make up their mind on what works for a Superman film. Filmmakers vacillate from nostalgia to deconstruction. And it is the fault of Superman as a character because, if the character was so easily understood and his basic building blocks so universally accepted and beloved, these filmmakers would not have felt compelled to think either too inside the box or too much outside of it.

Live action Superman films do not happen in a vacuum. The creative work that goes into them is borne out of the cultural capital Superman has developed outside of his feature film appearances. And, consequently, what Singer and Snyder had was a dueling consensus that Superman was either a boring and overpowered boy scout or an old-fashioned mascot whose nostalgic heydey must be recreated in almost ritualistic fashion. The downward spiral for Superman across all media has been happening for decades across many forms of media. It is under those conditions that the failed Superman films were made. Singer and Snyder could never make their films outside of these cultural conditions. Both aimed their films at appealing to a unique zeitgeist for the character.

Look, when even greats like Waid and Morrison cannot create versions of Superman that gain cultural traction, then something is clearly awry with Superman. Superman is simply a character that must be everything to everyone at all times. Even Superman's fans cannot make their minds up about the quintessential elements of the character. Superman has become some sort of vessel for the ultimate in relatability and wish-fulfilment, but what defines relatable and wish-fulfilment never means the same thing for everyone, and any strides toward consensus are almost immediately disrupted by another shift in the zeitgeist.

 

[misslane38]

I just don't agree that it's so hard to please Superman fans. I think most of us agree that we want a lighter, more optimistic, and fun portrayal of Superman. The people that want a dark and gritty Superman are the people who think he needs to be fundamentally changed to be interesting. Those people aren't fans.

I have spent enough time on Superman forums for the last two decades to know how absolutely wrong you are about Superman fans. Dead wrong. Even when he is everything you say Superman fans want, they can find a way to nitpick and complain. I know. I've seen it.

I also think you know it is a straw man to say any Superman fan wants the character to be dark and gritty. As a fan of DCEU Superman, for instance, I can tell you that I love the Cavill's Superman because he is neither of those things. Dark and gritty means something totally different. As someone who puts Reeve's Superman close to the bottom of my list of favorite incarnations, it is dark and gritty for Superman to have to choose between love and heroism. It is dark and gritty for Superman to treat the killing of a defenseless Zod as though it is a time for light and fun. It is dark and gritty for Superman to brutally attack bullies in diners.

So, perhaps, instead of doling out labels, you could acknowledge that Superman simply means different things to different people. That seeing a Superman struggle to hold onto hope in a cynical world can be uplifting, light, and optimistic because, ultimately, despite so much pain, he's able to face the nightmares and still be a light for others. I am not suggesting you or anyone else has to agree with me. I simply am asking you to consider that while Superman fans all want the character to be the same things, how those key elements are realized in a narrative can still be very different. And, it is within that debate that difficulties in adaptation arise.

Moreover, the problem facing Superman is not about exclusively appealing to Superman fans. Superman's fans, while they cannot agree on anything, still love the character and at least want to see him. The general audience? Doesn't care. He's not a fan favorite. And it's not just because of lackluster films.

 

[The Batman]

Not really.

Yeah, really.

And of course Waid and Morrison's comics didn't gain "cultural traction". Most comic books/graphic novels don't. Only Watchman and TDKR have really done that.

 

[The Guard]

It's been absolutely fascinating to be around for the development of SUPERMAN LIVES, SUPERMAN REBORN, SUPERMAN: FLYBY, SUPERMAN VS BATMAN (Asylum) and SUPERMAN RETURNS, and see how fans have changed with regard to what they want or will accept from Superman. With the more recent projects, a good vocal majority of them clamored for a return to the Chris Reeve Superman, rejected it after SUPERMAN RETURNS, then clamored for more a serious and violent Superman and films that explored the issues that the world would face if Superman existed, and then rejected that when they got it. There's a balance that needs to be struck with the character, and it's not as easy as it seems. Comics writers often report the same kinds of issues when they take on/handle the character.

 

[FunkMiller]

Live action Superman films do not happen in a vacuum. The creative work that goes into them is borne out of the cultural capital Superman has developed outside of his feature film appearances. And, consequently, what Singer and Snyder had was a dueling consensus that Superman was either a boring and overpowered boy scout or an old-fashioned mascot whose nostalgic heydey must be recreated in almost ritualistic fashion. The downward spiral for Superman across all media has been happening for decades across many forms of media. It is under those conditions that the failed Superman films were made. Singer and Snyder could never make their films outside of these cultural conditions. Both aimed their films at appealing to a unique zeitgeist for the character.
.

Utter rubbish. You're essentially saying 'don't blame Singer or Snyder for making a poor Superman movie... blame Superman!'

Was it Spider-man's fault that Spider-man 3 was awful? Or his fault that ASM 2 was awful? Was it Batman's fault that B&R was awful? Or Iron Man's fault that Iron Man 2 was pretty poor? Was it Iron Fist's fault that his series was bad?

Your argument has descended into farce, because you just can't admit that the reason why Superman has had a rough ride at the movies for so many years, is because he's been given over to creatives who didn't know what they were doing. Singer made a boring love letter to a superior director, and Snyder made two and half dog**** movies that were more concerned with pushing his juvenile, post-graduate level understanding of philosophy than they were with doing justice to the world's greatest comic book characters.

Blaming the fictional character for the short comings of the real people tasked with bringing him to the big screen.... Unbelievable

It's been absolutely fascinating to be around for the development of SUPERMAN LIVES, SUPERMAN REBORN, SUPERMAN: FLYBY, SUPERMAN VS BATMAN (Asylum) and SUPERMAN RETURNS, and see how fans have changed with regard to what they want or will accept from Superman. With the more recent projects, a good vocal majority of them clamored for a return to the Chris Reeve Superman, rejected it after SUPERMAN RETURNS, then clamored for more a serious and violent Superman and films that explored the issues that the world would face if Superman existed, and then rejected that when they got it. There's a balance that needs to be struck with the character, and it's not as easy as it seems. Comics writers often report the same kinds of issues when they take on/handle the character.

You're talking about a miniscule minority of the movie-going audience. Most people aren't comic book nerds, who endlessly debate over the way their characters are portrayed. Most folks just want good movies, and most folks just want Superman. If the film makers are listening to a small minority of fans, instead of trying to appeal to a massive general audience, then god help them.

Superman is no more or less complex or difficult to make a successful movie out of than any other comic character. I know this because Superman The Movie exists.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Yeah, I don't think Superman is the problem. Specific directors just failed to deliver great (or at least mass-appealing) movies. And it has nothing to do with this or that approach.

 

[misslane38]

Utter rubbish. You're essentially saying 'don't blame Singer or Snyder for making a poor Superman movie... blame Superman!'

In a sense, yes I am. These filmmakers were both responding to competing zeitgeists about the character. Ever since waning days of Reeve's Superman, it has been difficult to strike the right balance with the character. As a result, different creators from all forms of media keep experimenting with Superman in hopes of finding the perfect formula.

Was it Spider-man's fault that Spider-man 3 was awful? Or his fault that ASM 2 was awful? Was it Batman's fault that B&R was awful? Or Iron Man's fault that Iron Man 2 was pretty poor? Was it Iron Fist's fault that his series was bad?

Your analogies prove you have missed the point entirely. I am not speaking to the banality of plot points or poor execution. I am speaking to the fact that, when it comes to Superman, there are vastly different takes on what the character and his stories should be. It is from this foundation of uncertainty that we get films that adhere to one take to another.

Your argument has descended into farce, because you just can't admit that the reason why Superman has had a rough ride at the movies for so many years, is because he's been given over to creatives who didn't know what they were doing. Singer made a boring love letter to a superior director, and Snyder made two and half dog**** movies that were more concerned with pushing his juvenile, post-graduate level understanding of philosophy than they were with doing justice to the world's greatest comic book characters.

Your admonition here is abundantly reliant on fallacy. Do you think that if you keep repeating a lie -- keep reducing complex ideas to hyperbolic simplicities
-- that you will somehow convince me of anything? I am saying these creatives "don't know what they are doing" because the character, Superman, is broken. Creators are lost because Superman has been suffering through an extended period of creative uncertainty.

Blaming the fictional character for the short comings of the real people tasked with bringing him to the big screen. Unbelievable

Fictional characters carry with them a lot of inherent weight and complexity, especially characters that span nearly a century's worth of comics, television series, animated series, and films. Superman isn't just a fictional character anymore. He's a fond childhood memory, a lead in a romantic comedy, high concept sci-fi, workplace comedy, social justice warrior, charming celebrity, existential introvert, and so on. All of these takes have been winners for some and losers for some.

You're talking about a miniscule minority of the movie-going audience. Most people aren't comic book nerds, who endlessly debate over the way their characters are portrayed. Most folks just want good movies, and most folks just want Superman. If the film makers are listening to a small minority of fans, instead of trying to appeal to a massive general audience, then god help them.

Most folks don't know anything about Superman. He's just a pop culture icon that represents some vague notions about truth, justice, and the American way. Most folks just want Superman? They have no idea who Superman is. Even alleged Superman fans are clueless about him.

Superman is no more or less complex or difficult to make a successful movie out of than any other comic character. I know this because Superman The Movie exists.

Superman: The Movie exists, yes. I have acknowledged that some iterations have been hits with audiences, but even the success of Reeve's Superman couldn't last. It was a version that was unsustainable because of its success. Because of Superman: The Movie we are now stuck with acolytes endlessly seeking to replicate it (Singer, Vaughn) or iconoclasts seeking to deconstruct it (Snyder). Superman: The Movie is like the theme of the American Dream running through American literature: it's Daisy and we're Gatsby.

 

[misslane38]

Yeah, I don't think Superman is the problem. Specific directors just failed to deliver great (or at least mass-appealing) movies. And it has nothing to do with this or that approach.

It really does. It's not just that Singer and Snyder failed to win over audiences with their takes on Superman. It's the fact that only these two filmmakers and their ideas saw the light of day in the first place. Why were these two films made? Why were these two filmmakers the ones who made these films? If Superman isn't a problem, then why is it so difficult to get other directors interested in him? Why is it so difficult to hear the perfect pitch? Singer's and Snyder's films didn't happen in a cultural or show business vacuum.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I guess the first guy who won't try to replicate Reeve or deconstruct Superman will find success with a bit of luck. Even though I believe it's possible to do both successfully.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

It's been absolutely fascinating to be around for the development of SUPERMAN LIVES, SUPERMAN REBORN, SUPERMAN: FLYBY, SUPERMAN VS BATMAN (Asylum) and SUPERMAN RETURNS, and see how fans have changed with regard to what they want or will accept from Superman. With the more recent projects, a good vocal majority of them clamored for a return to the Chris Reeve Superman, rejected it after SUPERMAN RETURNS, then clamored for more a serious and violent Superman and films that explored the issues that the world would face if Superman existed, and then rejected that when they got it. There's a balance that needs to be struck with the character, and it's not as easy as it seems. Comics writers often report the same kinds of issues when they take on/handle the character.

I don't think anyone rejected the return to the Christopher Reeve version of Superman after Superman Returns. Audiences rejected a poor attempt of a Donner rehash that made Clark Kent/Superman a mute with 0% of the charisma that Reeve's Superman exuded. Man of Steel tried to go the other direction with a more serious attempt but at the same time still found a way to make the exact same mistake as Superman Returns in making Superman a mute with zero charisma and the personality of a doorknob. You can explore deep themes and all that stuff all the live long day but if your title character is written as poorly as he's been in the last few Superman movies audiences will continue to shun those portrayals because there's nothing to warm up to or root for.

 

[OutOfBoose]

It really does. It's not just that Singer and Snyder failed to win over audiences with their takes on Superman. It's the fact that only these two filmmakers and their ideas saw the light of day in the first place. Why were these two films made? Why were these two filmmakers the ones who made these films? If Superman isn't a problem, then why is it so difficult to get other directors interested in him? Why is it so difficult to hear the perfect pitch? Singer's and Snyder's films didn't happen in a cultural or show business vacuum.

I didn't really count, but I recall a number of directors expressed interest in Superman. I think there's also the studio and producers. They always try to swim on trends.

I don't think anyone rejected the return to the Christopher Reeve version of Superman after Superman Returns. Audiences rejected a poor attempt of a Donner rehash that made Clark Kent/Superman a mute with 0% of the charisma that Reeve's Superman exuded. Man of Steel tried to go the other direction with a more serious attempt but at the same time still found a way to make the exact same mistake as Superman Returns in making Superman a mute with zero charisma and the personality of a doorknob. You can explore deep themes and all that stuff all the live long day but if your title character is written as poorly as he's been in the last few Superman movies audiences will continue to shun those portrayals because there's nothing to warm up to or root for.