It saddens me that Batman is able to inspire alot of talent, because these people just instantly 'get it' and why his stories work, there's been no-one lining up to tell Superman stories.
The appeal of Batman is just so palpable instantly to creative types. They instantly recognize which regions of the human psyche he draws on: dark, gothic, satanic imagery (which has always been 'cool' in underground and pop culture), the powerful car in big explosive chases, the sexy fetish girls, the thrill/escapist/adrenaline aspect of it.
Whereas most of these same people just don't see the appeal of Superman. They understand the appeal of flying, but they think that's all there is to it, and it's shallow beyond that. Superman has just always had this problem with these people. Even before MOS, Snyder admitted he could never do a Superman film. We saw it leading up to filming too. Jonathan Nolan saying he just 'doesn't get the character, and thus would be no help in writing for it'. Defend Chris Nolan all you want saying his reasons were to do with 'inexperience in effects-driven films, and wanting to move on from superhero movies', the truth is he passed off MOS. The truth is if he really felt passionate about the project and excited about it's prospects he would have done it himself. As simple as that. But Superman isn't Batman, and thus he didn't feel the same about him. Joss Whedon has dished on Superman as well. That he's 'not attainable enough, too idyllic, too powerful'. The usual BS. Even certain comics writers don't get the character and thus can't or won't write stories about him.
I really really hoped that MOS would be the turning point for this. That it would be the light switch in everyone's head, especially these intellectual artists and storytellers, that just turns on all at once. Where all these people would finally see the appeal of the character. Why the character works. And thus the entire property is rejuvenated with all these fresh-minded people wanting to add to it and carry it even further then it's been in these last 75 years.
But to be honest: It didn't. If anything it just continues the cycle of abuse of people confusing it, and just not getting it. The reasons here are twofold but I think they both fold back on Snyder. One the movie was good, and that's it. About on par with all the other ordinary Marvel fare we've been getting. Nothing that sets it above those. And a lot of people here and outside here will tell you it was only average, or very very bad. That's fault 1.
Fault 2 is what Snyder actually tried to do to compensate for this creative cloud the character has given other industry storytellers. He tried to reinvent the character and the stories he's in. He chipped away and away until we were left with something else. To make him relatable and attainable he gave him social angst and a bitter upbringing. You can argue this, but until the final flashback clothesline scene we really aren't shown much joy in his youth. Every flashback before hand is to make a point about his alienation and serve some preachy Costner dialogue. And scenes like with the trucker in the bar serve to make a point about this alienation as well. I thought this was a novel change actually, had the film halfway led to Clark's fulfillment of life, and acceptance from other people. It goes too far though by also putting a chip on his shoulder by making him responsible for not saving his father when he could. That he was instead supposed to learn some lesson against his own nature, which is to save people. By the end of this 'Superman' story. The color palette is just murky bleak grey (yes, in a 'Superman' story). The city is just smoke and rubble. And then our hero just snaps the villains neck, in a resolution that no other superhero film has ever done. But I don't really think that speaks for ambition, more forced edginess, and actually confusion. Yes, even the people behind MOS, didn't get how the character resolves situations in his own stories and why this is important.
So instead of SR where it was just disregard, MOS may have actually achieved negatively affecting the character even more. People may actually be more confused than ever about the character now. And to be honest the people behind MOS are just the same. Having the sequel be Batman/Superman again speaks to confusion as to where to take the character. And a safety net because 'hey, bring in Batman, he can't fail right?'.
Here's the difference between Batman and Superman, and coincidently why Superman will always be far and away the better character for me. Batman is all of those things I mentioned at the top: dark imagery, thrills, cars, girls, etc. Grant Morrison has said that Batman is a teenage fantasy, whereas Superman is more adult, in the sense that Batman has a butler, has a myriad of sexy girls chasing him, better cars than Bond, and is a thrill-seeker, underneath all this anti-hero 'avenge my parents' that no-one cares about. Superman has a boss, pines for a hard-working girl, as well as struggles with existentialist problems of his own limits. But that's nothing compared to what Superman really is. Superman is a celebration of life, humanity, nature, love, and adventure. That's what his films (and any medium he's in) should be. A bright, colorful palette. Fun, inspiring stories.
I guess this is where the disconnect lies though. Too few people actually get this. Especially the important ones at WB/DC that are responsible for what happens with the property. And even Superman's best fans will argue the ideal nature of his stories and character (looking at you Marvin). Sigh.
Well this post turned out longer than I originally intentioned…
