Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman - - - - - - - - - - Part 19

[heatvision38]

Nolan wasn't the Nolan we know and respect until well into his Batman tenure. At their time of hiring, Superman had the more accomplished and popular creative teams signed to their projects. So this wasn't like Batman was given some sort of special treatment. That IP earned its respect and prestige.

Those movies might have made Nolan that much more well known, but he was clearly an excellent writer/director by that point. How well he was known is not relevant. How good he is, is.

It would be like saying a movie about a shark is a guaranteed box office smash. And I say, "Well, you had a guy named Steven Spielberg make that movie, that helps." And then the response is, "Well, Spielberg wasn't really that well known then." But it's still Spielberg, nonetheless.

By the time of the TDK, Nolan had done Memento, a very well-thought of movie, Insomnia, BB, and the Prestige. So, given how great Nolan is, yes, he had a lot to do with the success of those movies. Nobody is saying Batman wouldn't make money, but to say "Batman is an automatic billion dollar franchise" when the only time he did so was with Nolan at the helm is disingenuous (not saying you specifically said that, but I have seen that a lot). You still need a good movie (as BvS and JL have illustrated).

 

[Manasrepublic]

I am saddened that there is no chance for Cavill anymore. Therr were seriously some golden Superman moments in MOS. I wish they could have the basic intelligence to not screw up their properties so much. It’s pitiful as a studio how badly WB has managed recent comic characters compared to Marvel

 

[Jekecy]

We've had 5 Batman's and 9 appearance's since 1989 and 2 Superman's and 4 appearances from the same time period. The studio hardly did anything with him with those supposed chances and when it looked like they had something going, they couldn't have botched it more.

When Batman Returns turned some of the larger audiences away, it still churned in a lot of money comparatively with its competitors. Studio still went with a soft reboot, and found massive success again with Batman Forever. When B&R drew toxicity from every side, the entire series was put on hold for damn near a decade.

The studio reacted accordingly then just as they have now. Batman has Reeves because it's only been 6 years since Batman still held high acclaim in the genre. WB can afford to use its lifeline there. Momentum is still on Batman's side. If Reeves' series indisputably fails, and Batman gets another reboot shortly thereafter, then we can start talking special treatment.

Supes got a soft reboot with Singer, and a mere 6 years later a harder reboot with Snyder. Neither boosted the IPs mainstream appeal (unlike what Nolan did for Batman). So...it's on hold. Objectively speaking that's absolutely fair. It's inane to continuously pump hundreds of millions of dollars to a brand that isn't generating excitement. If they truly saw untapped potential there, they would have gone digging more. Supes fans are notoriously overestimating their brand's worth and always boasting about "future potential" being where the character really can shine... "just have patience!". I saw it with Singer's unmade SR sequel (ooh Braniac invasion, think of the ACTION), and I'm seeing it here with the JL Snydercut (Superman's ultimate return that would FINALLY reunite fanbases) and the alternate timeline of an MOS2 (because apparently the first one was so greatly received). I'd bet everything SnyderSupes would have received just as middling of a response as it did the first go-around, and hardcore fans would still insist there's an explosive film waiting in the tuck for a sequel. Rinse, repeat.

This isn't how business works. You gotta have a strong foundation to build bigger. Forcing it with umpteenth attempts won't magically grant you success. When Supes gets its Casino Royale or Batman Begins, I'll be at the frontlines championing his comeback. But I'm not coming out roaring for subpar productions driven solely by my fanboy desires.

 

[heatvision38]

When Batman Returns turned some of the larger audiences away, it still churned in a lot of money comparatively with its competitors. Studio still went with a soft reboot, and found massive success again with Batman Forever. When B&R drew toxicity from every side, the entire series was put on hold for damn near a decade.

The studio reacted accordingly then just as they have now. Batman has Reeves because it's only been 6 years since Batman still held high acclaim in the genre. WB can afford to use its lifeline there. Momentum is still on Batman's side. If Reeves' series indisputably fails, and Batman gets another reboot shortly thereafter, then we can start talking special treatment.

Supes got a soft reboot with Singer, and a mere 6 years later a harder reboot with Snyder. Neither boosted the IPs mainstream appeal (unlike what Nolan did for Batman). So...it's on hold. Objectively speaking that's absolutely fair. It's inane to continuously pump hundreds of millions of dollars to a brand that isn't generating excitement. If they truly saw untapped potential there, they would have gone digging more. Supes fans are notoriously overestimating their brand's worth and always boasting about "future potential" being where the character really can shine... "just have patience!". I saw it with Singer's unmade SR sequel (ooh Braniac invasion, think of the ACTION), and I'm seeing it here with the JL Snydercut (Superman's ultimate return that would FINALLY reunite fanbases) and the alternate timeline of an MOS2 (because apparently the first one was so greatly received). I'd bet everything SnyderSupes would have received just as middling of a response as it did the first go-around, and hardcore fans would still insist there's an explosive film waiting in the tuck for a sequel. Rinse, repeat.

This isn't how business works. You gotta have a strong foundation to build bigger. Forcing it with umpteenth attempts won't magically grant you success. When Supes gets its Casino Royale or Batman Begins, I'll be at the frontlines championing his comeback. But I'm not coming out roaring for subpar productions driven solely by my fanboy desires.

And yet, despite all that, MOS made more than BB.

 

[Jekecy]

Those movies might have made Nolan that much more well known, but he was clearly an excellent writer/director by that point. How well he was known is not relevant. How good he is, is.

It would be like saying a movie about a shark is a guaranteed box office smash. And I say, "Well, you had a guy named Steven Spielberg make that movie, that helps." And then the response is, "Well, Spielberg wasn't really that well known then." But it's still Spielberg, nonetheless.

By the time of the TDK, Nolan had done Memento, a very well-thought of movie, Insomnia, BB, and the Prestige. So, given how great Nolan is, yes, he had a lot to do with the success of those movies. Nobody is saying Batman wouldn't make money, but to say "Batman is an automatic billion dollar franchise" when the only time he did so was with Nolan at the helm is disingenuous (not saying you specifically said that, but I have seen that a lot). You still need a good movie (as BvS and JL have illustrated).

You're still looking at it in hindsight. No one's denying Nolan is arguably the most talented filmmaker to lend his talents to the genre. That's a huge plus for Batman, no denying. But Nolan doesn't make Prestige, or TDK, or Inception, without the opportunity WB gave him with BB. That was his foot in the door. In 2003, he was still an up-and-comer with mild acclaim and some intrigue, but certainly not some hot commodity. It's only post-Batman that he made his claim to fame.

Comparatively Singer had Apt Pupil, Usual Suspects, and X1/X2 under his belt. Critical acclaim and tremendous box office success. Snyder had 300, plus the team of the Dark Knight backing him. Once again, a combination of mass appeal, critical acclaim, and box office receipts to the resume. That's from the rip.

Batman did not have that. He never did, actually. Going back to his live-action debut, who did we get for hire? The director of modestly successful comedies in Beetlejuice and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Plus a first-time film composer who was apart of an 80s glam-pop band.

Superman? The director of The Omen, the composer of Star Wars, ET, Jaws, and the screenwriter of Godfather 1 and 2. Like...c'mon!

I can't rock with this woe-is-me narrative that Supes has been getting the short end of the stick for years on end. More than any other superhero he's been dealt with incredibly good (at the time) cards to succeed. Superman's creative talent resume has been always been stacked from day one. How those opportunities turned out is another matter. But the studio put in the time and effort to try and prop him up. Superman fans just have to hold this L for a little while and let the cooldown meter do its thing.

 

[Jekecy]

And yet, despite all that, MOS made more than BB.

Much different climate in the genre, wouldn't you admit? None of those movies other than Spider-Man were raking in past 500 million WW.

Despite a severely lower gross, BB still had momentum in its critical and audience response. That made all the difference in the world with building sequels.

 

[MbJ]

EXCLUSIVE: WB Developing 'Superman' TV Series

If it is then I say that it is even bigger B.S. and that the folks at Warner Bros and DC are so full of it.

Not much B.S. about it. Response to Hoechlin's version of Superman was very positive, so it's not surprising at all they'd spin him off. It does however say to me we definitely shouldn't expect to see much of him on the big screen anytime soon given how weird the studio is about having multiple live-action versions of the same character (I can guarantee had Flash been pitched after the DCEU it never would've been greenlit).

 

[heatvision38]

Much different climate in the genre, wouldn't you admit? None of those movies other than Spider-Man were raking in past 500 million WW.

Despite a severely lower gross, BB still had momentum in its critical and audience response. That made all the difference in the world with building sequels.

I am not talking critical buzz. The fact that BB had all the critical buzz and yet MOS made more money should tell you something-- that people still want to see Superman. Yes, MOS came out some years after BB, but add it all up and it's still telling.

 

[heatvision38]

You're still looking at it in hindsight. No one's denying Nolan is arguably the most talented filmmaker to lend his talents to the genre. That's a huge plus for Batman, no denying. But Nolan doesn't make Prestige, or TDK, or Inception, without the opportunity WB gave him with BB. That was his foot in the door. In 2003, he was still an up-and-comer with mild acclaim and some intrigue, but certainly not some hot commodity. It's only post-Batman that he made his claim to fame.

Comparatively Singer had Apt Pupil, Usual Suspects, and X1/X2 under his belt. Critical acclaim and tremendous box office success. Snyder had 300, plus the team of the Dark Knight backing him. Once again, a combination of mass appeal, critical acclaim, and box office receipts to the resume. That's from the rip.

Batman did not have that. He never did, actually. Going back to his live-action debut, who did we get for hire? The director of modestly successful comedies in Beetlejuice and Pee-Wee's Big Adventure. Plus a first-time film composer who was apart of an 80s glam-pop band.

Superman? The director of The Omen, the composer of Star Wars, ET, Jaws, and the screenwriter of Godfather 1 and 2. Like...c'mon!

I can't rock with this woe-is-me narrative that Supes has been getting the short end of the stick for years on end. More than any other superhero he's been dealt with incredibly good (at the time) cards to succeed. Superman's creative talent resume has been always been stacked from day one. How those opportunities turned out is another matter. But the studio put in the time and effort to try and prop him up. Superman fans just have to hold this L for a little while and let the cooldown meter do its thing.

I am not sure we are talking about this same thing. A great director (already lauded by the time he made BB) makes a very well received intro Batman movie. People thought very highly of it. Then he has a crack at a sequel (which, keep in mind that this as a much a crime drama with an amazing Joker performance as it is a Batman movie, if not moreso) and knocks it out of the park. There is no 20/20 here. The fact is, a great writer/director (perhaps the best of this era) got his hands on Batman. That's going to do a lot for the character. In fact, I would argue that Batman is at the height of his popularity because of those movies. He was popular before, of course, but not like he is today.

 

[All-Father]

Supes doesn't have a billion dollar series to his name that's still relatively fresh. Batman is still the marquee face of the brand despite whatever misfires have recently come under his name. Not to mention there's tons of leftover prestige that they can capitalize on and numerous creatives gravitate to. That's why he gets priority over Supes.

I see all this talk of what could've been, and ultimately all that potential amounts to nothing if it can't be utilized. This isn't isolated to the current era, no one has cracked that code for about 4 decades now. There's only so much effort that can be pumped into a single IP. All things considered, Superman fans should be grateful this character hasn't been buried yet. He's had more shots than any other superhero to soar to the top. Fans cannot condemn the studio for lack of trying.

I couldn't agree more with you. I even posted

Indeed, that was true once. The problem is that he has not exactly been relevant, specially in the movies, since the 80s. Batman became the top property from DC/Wb by far. Spider-Man, already very popular and famous, surpassed him too, by far.

After Marvel entered in the game things changed even more. We're in the end of the 2010s, and the whole notion of who's really popular and A-Lister has completely changed. The background is way different than the one of almost 40 years ago.
Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

Some fans still pretend that Superman is an "A-brand", An A-Lister these days. This isn't true in every aspect: his merchandise doesn't come close at all to the Spider-Man, Batman and the Avengers brand.

This hasn't been true in comics: since the 80s, when his books were with low sales, they had to reboot it with Byrne's (the hottest creator at that point)man of steal, which improved sales, but didn't really set the world on fire. His sales became mediocre again and they had to kill him to get high sales. Once that passed, the sales were down.
In the following years; the rest of the 90s and the 2000s, more mediocrity. It wasn't for the lack of talent: Jim Lee, Azzarelo, Geoff Johns, Gary Frank, Busiek, Loeb, Kelly, etc. worked in his books; they increased the sales for a short time, but soon they fell to the usual mid levels. That was the same in the 2010s: more talent in the books (Morrison, Straczynski, Johns again, Bendis, Reis etc.), but, usually, mediocre sales - one of those was a absolute disaster, btw. The Flash is now the 2nd biggest seller from dc, behind batman.

The same excuse is given: the creators don't get Superman. It seems no one does.

Concerning cartoons, his last one (in the 90s!) was good and well received, but that's it. It didn't come close to Batman's, and most of the views came from the fact they played it before Batman.

In other form's of media, video games; his history is atrocious: he doesn't have a single good game which didn't sell well. Some of them are among the worst games produced.

The same excuse again: they don't get superman.

Is it possible that no one gets Superman?? They keep trying and trying, but don't succeed because they simply don't get the character?? 40 years passed, and no one got him right??

I honestly don't think this is the biggest reason. Something related to the character and the material doesn't work well.

As Jekecy , fans of the character should be happy that dc/wb haven't buried him or put him in freezer for a long, long time. They have every reason to believe he simply doesn't work and that investing 200 or more millions in such brand is not what I would call good business.

 

[STARMAN]

They're not rejecting the character. They're rejecting bad movies. Superman 3 and 4 are bad and would be rejected by any standards whether Superman is in it or not. Superman Returns and Man of Steel were mediocre and thus the response was lukewarm. Superman has been able to survive multiple bad to mediocre films. It's a testament to the character that he generated as much box office as he has under those circumstances. The audience is willingly to embrace Superman. Now there comes a point where so many failures can dilute a character's brand especially with all the other comic book heroes out there. But Superman has not been met with indifference. When that happens, when a great Superman film is out there and goes completely ignored, then we have a problem.

 

[Nemeres]

How do you imagine it would be handled? Would Diana, Barry, and Arthur be written as if they were meeting Batman and Superman for the first time, or would it be written as if they already know them? If it's the latter, how would they characterize their past interactions or relationships? Would Superman or Batman get to take a leadership position even though Wonder Woman and even Aquaman would seem to have more seniority? In addition, if a team up happens, will the Reeve Batman films or any Superverse related films imply connection to an existing superhero world prior to the team up? Basically, how do you imagine a JL2 playing out that would handle the transition? In addition, to set it up, at least one Batman film and one Superman film (Supergirl, if he guests, or his own solo) would have to be released, Flash has to be released by its newly announced 2021 date, Green Lantern Corps would probably need to be made and released, and if Aquaman is a success I can see them fast tracking a sequel like they did with WW84. That would put whatever JL movie at about a decade into the DCEU (MoS released in 2013). I personally don't see a lot of impetus to do another JL movie at the rate they're going and if stand alone franchises are what work.

I imagine all the soft reboot rules would apply. They'd all know each other, have a certain history as a team, but the specifics aren't discussed in a way that'd make the older films cannon, and the new one would be allowed to set all terms. From the ground up, even. Establish a dynamic between, say, Clark and Diana that wasn't there in BVS/JL, for instance. Clark and Bruce would simply have different faces. If Reeves's Batman establishes him as younger or different, JL2 would play along. Same if the new Kents are both alive or both dead, etc. Basically imply that at some point during their solo series, WW, Aquaman and Flash lost the footing they had on the films that introduced them and that keeping those established faces in their roles takes precedence over story continuity. You can't avoid clunkiness, but no one buys a ticket if they're unwilling to go along. Issues like the leader's spot and whatnot, it would be up to the story at hand.

 

[misslane38]

I imagine all the soft reboot rules would apply. They'd all know each other, have a certain history as a team, but the specifics aren't discussed in a way that'd make the older films cannon, and the new one would be allowed to set all terms. From the ground up, even. Establish a dynamic between, say, Clark and Diana that wasn't there in BVS/JL, for instance. Clark and Bruce would simply have different faces. If Reeves's Batman establishes him as younger or different, JL2 would play along. Same if the new Kents are both alive or both dead, etc. Basically imply that at some point during their solo series, WW, Aquaman and Flash lost the footing they had on the films that introduced them and that keeping those established faces in their roles takes precedence over story continuity. You can't avoid clunkiness, but no one buys a ticket if they're unwilling to go along. Issues like the leader's spot and whatnot, it would be up to the story at hand.

Still not good enough for me, sorry.

 

[Nemeres]

Fair enough. It would be for me.

 

[Flint Marko]

IP. All things considered, Superman fans should be grateful this character hasn't been buried yet. He's had more shots than any other superhero to soar to the top. Fans cannot condemn the studio for lack of trying.

I couldn’t disagree more. Their “trying” amounts to basically two movies in the past several decades, and when both of those movies didn’t work they just shrugged their shoulders and went back to their comfort zone with Batman.

Superman fans shouldn’t be content with that.

 

[MbJ]

They're not rejecting the character. They're rejecting bad movies. Superman 3 and 4 are bad and would be rejected by any standards whether Superman is in it or not. Superman Returns and Man of Steel were mediocre and thus the response was lukewarm. Superman has been able to survive multiple bad to mediocre films. It's a testament to the character that he generated as much box office as he has under those circumstances. The audience is willingly to embrace Superman. Now there comes a point where so many failures can dilute a character's brand especially with all the other comic book heroes out there. But Superman has not been met with indifference. When that happens, when a great Superman film is out there and goes completely ignored, then we have a problem.

And in fact I'd say the fact that there does continue to be some measure of enthusiasm for the character in spite of misfires is a testament to his popularity. If people didn't care about Superman, there wouldn't have been controversies over some of the more questionable creative choices made with the character in film. You wouldn't have people praising the character's guest spots on Supergirl or being excited by rumors of the makers of the Arkham Asylum games possibly working on a Superman video game. Even with the massive failure of Justice League, it's not an uncommon opinion among the people who did actually see it to say "It's not great but at least I liked Superman more this time." If nobody cared about the character, everyone would've just shrugged and moved on.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Really good discussion in here.

 

[Superchan]

I couldn't agree more with you. I even posted



Some fans still pretend that Superman is an "A-brand", An A-Lister these days. This isn't true in every aspect: his merchandise doesn't come close at all to the Spider-Man, Batman and the Avengers brand.

This hasn't been true in comics: since the 80s, when his books were with low sales, they had to reboot it with Byrne's (the hottest creator at that point)man of steal, which improved sales, but didn't really set the world on fire. His sales became mediocre again and they had to kill him to get high sales. Once that passed, the sales were down.
In the following years; the rest of the 90s and the 2000s, more mediocrity. It wasn't for the lack of talent: Jim Lee, Azzarelo, Geoff Johns, Gary Frank, Busiek, Loeb, Kelly, etc. worked in his books; they increased the sales for a short time, but soon they fell to the usual mid levels. That was the same in the 2010s: more talent in the books (Morrison, Straczynski, Johns again, Bendis, Reis etc.), but, usually, mediocre sales - one of those was a absolute disaster, btw. The Flash is now the 2nd biggest seller from dc, behind batman.

The same excuse is given: the creators don't get Superman. It seems no one does.

Concerning cartoons, his last one (in the 90s!) was good and well received, but that's it. It didn't come close to Batman's, and most of the views came from the fact they played it before Batman.

In other form's of media, video games; his history is atrocious: he doesn't have a single good game which didn't sell well. Some of them are among the worst games produced.

The same excuse again: they don't get superman.

Is it possible that no one gets Superman?? They keep trying and trying, but don't succeed because they simply don't get the character?? 40 years passed, and no one got him right??

I honestly don't think this is the biggest reason. Something related to the character and the material doesn't work well.

As Jekecy , fans of the character should be happy that dc/wb haven't buried him or put him in freezer for a long, long time. They have every reason to believe he simply doesn't work and that investing 200 or more millions in such brand is not what I would call good business.

Really? So in your opinion that WB and the comicbooks and the videogames all "got"superman right but the character simply doesn't interest people.?
You think that SR, MOS and BvS were beloved by critics and the fans alike but people simply weren't interested? Whatever. if you don't like the character then just leave and stop trolling.

Superman IS an "A-band" even if the brand is constantly backed by s**t quality. You wanna talk numbers, lets talk numbers:

In the comics you talk about how superman comics had middling sales for years and you'd be right but guess what so were batman's comics (and so was DC comics in general for that matter) until 2011 when scott snyder came along but superman was also in the top 10 list when Morrison came on superman and it's top 10 now with Bendis while Flash isn't so update your info before you start talking nonsense.
The superman earth one series by Strazenski were in the newyork times top seller list even though non of 'em set the world on fire when came to quality and you can go and check out the numbers yourself if don't believe me.
At the end of the day comicbooks are such a niche market that comicbook sales mean nothing, otherwise Iron man would be somewhere within the top 10 and marvel in general would be outselling DC like they have been for for decades but that's not the case.

In animation, the last superman series was in 2006, not the 90s and it's called Legion of superheros and the reason why it didn't have superboy or superman in the titles was because the of the copyright issues that was raging on and before you say "then howcome superman returns got made" you have to remember that the development on the superman movie began in 94 before the siegel estate filed for ownership of the character.
Now did the LOSH series set the world on fire? Not really but atleast it lasted longer than batman's last series "beware the batman", which barely and I mean barely clocked one series.
STAS was very successful and the reason it's rating improved drastically in season 2 wasn't because it was paired with batman but because they changed the airing time of the shows and I don't think it's any shame for STAS (or any show) to come second best to BTAS do you.
And I love the fact that you talked about animation and chose to ingnore the fact that Superman doomsday is still the highest selling DTV of all of the DC archive, infact it sold more than both of the dark knight returns films put together and they didn't even have to use the "death of" in the title.
You want to paint a real pic about how superman is a middling brand that's fine but try and not to omit important figures just back up your trolling bull****

[/QUOTE]In other form's of media, video games; his history is atrocious: he doesn't have a single good game which didn't sell well. Some of them are among the worst games produced. The same excuse again: they don't get superman.[/QUOTE]

Wait let me get this straight you pretty much said that supeman's vidgames were atrocious but then you follow that up with snark and sarcasm about the excuse of "not getting" superman? You sound confused! If all of his games were s*** then it stands to reason that they are so because no body "got" superman in that medium.
As for sales well superman64 is one of the worst of all time and still was in the top seller's list during it's release. I remember there was an article about how well superman64 sold despite it's atrocious quality.
Remember before the Arkham games Batman's videogame history was just as checkered as superman's was and it took a studio like Rocksteady to finally get batman right in the 21st century.

I love the fact that you ignored Smallville the longest lasting superhero show ever and how it's ratings were twice those of any CW or Gotham, but then I remembered that you're trying to take a dump at the character so let's move on......

In film we've had SR, MOS and BvS in the 21st century. Lets use MOS because it's a good comparison with Amazing spidy and BB since it's a reboot in the 21st century. The measure of an IP's strength is determined by it's opening weekend and if that's the case then MOS's 129million opening (116 weekend plus the walmart advanced tickets) is actually about as much as BB and Amazing spidy's openings combined!!! But then again BB came out 8 years prior so inflation and the nature of the movie industry changed quite abit, still MOS's opening was nothing short of fantastic (then june record, then highest superhero origin opening and second highest opening for a non sequel in history at the time). What does that opening say? well several things including the fact that WB did very well marketing the movie but more importantly it says that the superman brand is very strong. The film ofcourse ended up disappointing but only because it divided the critics and the fan community in half and like most Snyder films it dropped like a rock the subsequent weeks.

[/QUOTE] Is it possible that no one gets Superman?? They keep trying and trying, but don't succeed because they simply don't get the character?? 40 years passed, and no one got him right??

I honestly don't think this is the biggest reason. Something related to the character and the material doesn't work well.

As Jekecy , fans of the character should be happy that dc/wb haven't buried him or put him in freezer for a long, long time. They have every reason to believe he simply doesn't work and that investing 200 or more millions in such brand is not what I would call good business [/QUOTE]

No, it's not possible! You think character that is globally recognized, a character that has survived and thrived for over 80s "doesn't work well"? Again stop trolling. What is possible is that the company you're trying to defend doesn't know what the f*** it's doing with it's DC brand, hence why their cinematic U thus far has failed miserably (with the exception of WW, the one good movie they made....what a coincidence!). So don't talk to me about 'good business' when this company's incompetence resulted in Dr Strange making more than JL (headed by your boy batman)!!! And stop making it sound that fans should be grateful that WB aren't putting superman on ice, the reason why they won't put him on ice is because they can't! Not if they don't want to pay the Siegels alot of cash for not utilizing the brand to it's full potential.

 

[flickchick85]

And in fact I'd say the fact that there does continue to be some measure of enthusiasm for the character in spite of misfires is a testament to his popularity.

I totally agree.

 

[SiegePerilous]

I couldn’t disagree more. Their “trying” amounts to basically two movies in the past several decades, and when both of those movies didn’t work they just shrugged their shoulders and went back to their comfort zone with Batman.

Superman fans shouldn’t be content with that.

There is also the fact that JL was the last chance for this Superman to prove himself and justify a sequel. They then proceeded to leave him out of the majority of the marketing. Meanwhile, Batman and Wonder Woman were right at the forefront, the latter fresh off her success of the solo movie, and they could not draw people into see a movie with a negative critical reception on top of the previous poorly received films. And yet Superman is the problem?

It's BS. Characters with similar tones like Wonder Woman, Captain America and Spider-Man can thrive, and Shazam might be poised to be successful as well. All of them save Spider-Man are almost as old as he is, they just got lucky to have better creators behind the camera. Batman got lucky he got Nolan instead of someone like Singer or Snyder to get him out of "Box office Poison" status. That's all it is. Yeah, WB is sensible to take their time with him and make sure they have a proper plan in place before spending money. But it's their own ineptitude that got them to this point to begin with, Superman fans should only be understanding towards them to a point. Pitiful offering after pitiful offering is not any valid proof that a fictional character is too difficult to get right.

 

[heatvision38]

edit

 

[Black Narcissus]

I don't think that enthusiasm deserves another 200 million movie tho. Not at this time. It seems to me that Hamada was trying to build him up again with cameos, earn the good will again, but that is not an option anymore. I'm happy for Supe fans if he gets another tv series tho. Eh.

 

[flickchick85]

It's funny, I've recently realized the only screen incarnations of the character I've ever loved have been on TV. So yes, while it's nice to see him on the big screen where his power set can get a proper portrayal every now and then, if I can get more fleshed out characterization and world-building for him on TV, then I'll happily accept the trade-off of less impressive power displays for that.

 

[MbJ]

There is also the fact that JL was the last chance for this Superman to prove himself and justify a sequel. They then proceeded to leave him out of the majority of the marketing. Meanwhile, Batman and Wonder Woman were right at the forefront, the latter fresh off her success of the solo movie, and they could not draw people into see a movie with a negative critical reception on top of the previous poorly received films. And yet Superman is the problem?

It's BS. Characters with similar tones like Wonder Woman, Captain America and Spider-Man can thrive, and Shazam might be poised to be successful as well. All of them save Spider-Man are almost as old as he is, they just got lucky to have better creators behind the camera. Batman got lucky he got Nolan instead of someone like Singer or Snyder to get him out of "Box office Poison" status. That's all it is. Yeah, WB is sensible to take their time with him and make sure they have a proper plan in place before spending money. But it's their own ineptitude that got them to this point to begin with, Superman fans should only be understanding towards them to a point. Pitiful offering after pitiful offering is not any valid proof that a fictional character is too difficult to get right.

It reminds me a lot of how everyone in Hollywood was flummoxed by the massive successes of Wonder Woman and Black Panther because the logic for years was that audiences did not want to see superhero movies starring women or people of color, when it turned out that the examples they were using to reinforce that logic (Supergirl, Elektra, Catwoman, Steel, ect.) were just terrible flicks and failed because of that.

 

[Black Narcissus]