I've literally never heard anyone suggest it should avoid dealing with real world issues. "Uplifting, light-hearted" and those types of things are simply hallmarks of the character you can't blame people for expecting after he's been all about that stuff in comics and other media for 80 years. The only problems are the people who consider "fun" a bad word and equate "light-hearted" to "MCU wannabe." Most iconic blockbusters, from Superman to Star Wars to Indiana Jones to Mission: Impossible are light-hearted, and that's not a slight. It's a quality that's rightfully expected by most audiences from a character like Superman, considering of all heroes, he's the one MOST known for being a beacon of hope and positivity. Those qualities in movies usually engender a sense of light-heartedness naturally. That doesn't preclude heavy emotional moments or dealing with real-world issues. And thinking the two are somehow mutually exclusive is a narrow view, and not at all accurate to the reality of movies.
They can be but movies can be successful even without these (IM3, IW, TDK, Joker), it should not be about completing a check-list but story should be primary thing over everything else.
IM3, IW and TDK (to a lesser extent) absolutely had those qualities. Joker was movie about a famous fictional psychopath. Superman never needs a movie like that. It's not what he's about. When you're dealing with an existing character not of your own creation that lives in the hearts and minds of millions already, then your primary goal as a temporary custodian for that character (because make no mistake, that's what you are), should be to do right by them and capture the spirit of said character, imo. It's not about a checklist, it's about telling a fresh, relevant story while maintaining the very basic foundational qualities that make that character, that character. No one's asking for specific plot points or aesthetics - that would be the kind of unnecessary checklist you're talking about. You wouldn't want a Han Solo movie where Han acts like Anakin Skywalker, right? Of course not. Audiences want to at least be able to recognize those characters they already know.
Exactly. What most fans are asking for is just something more in the middle of that spectrum. Emotions and tones aren't binary, so there's no reason to think in extremes. A character can be funny and light-hearted in one moment and emotional and serious in another, and still ultimately leave people feeling uplifted in the end. To suggest otherwise is a blatant rejection of what movies are all about, imo.
The old lady I mentioned was from Secret Origin. Early on in the story, when he first gets to Metropolis, Clark (looking for his new apartment or the Daily Planet or something) accidentally bumps into her on the crowded sidewalk. And he of course immediately apologizes, but she reams him out, telling him to watch where he's going, and is generally just rude and unpleasant. Then, at the end of the story, Superman's flying by up above, and we see some other poor new-in-town sap bump into the same old lady, but this time her demeanor's totally different, much friendlier, and she's all (paraphrasing), "oh don't worry about it young man, you'll fit right in here, we're all always watching the sky for him." It's just a nice little touch I've always loved from an otherwise very bland take on the origin, imo.
I hear you there. That’s always a concern. But I think Abrams is pretty much the least likely filmmaker we’d have to worry about going there, because unlike most of the others discussed here, he has a long-time passionate love for the character and has already demonstrated that he knows exactly what makes Superman, Superman, and appreciates him on those merits, instead of wanting to change him to fit some other mold/story.
For upcoming Halloween..
