Is Superman getting the shaft in "Justice League"? - Part 2

[metaphysician]

I think they were still punch-drunk from Avengers making all the money. The greed convinced them to make bad decisions.

 

[Superchan]

Well when it comes to MoS they had been turned down by four different directors and needed to get production started soon or they'd owe money to the Siegel/Shuster estate. So sure, go with Snyder. It's worth mentioning that, at this time, it was not envisioned as the start of a cinematic universe. But when that movie underwhelmed both critically and financially (again, Snyder's fourth movie in a row to do so), you don't let him control the universe going forward. Everyone should have recognized that as a bad move at the time, but yeah, they wanted to rush forward without any real plan.

Do we know that for sure?

I know that Duncan Jones's idea was turned down (he envisioned supes as a Dr manhantan type character) while Aranofsky really wanted to do a superman movie but it seems like he didn't like Goyer's script.

so no MOS2 news because no director interested???
i thought mostly because they can't get a good story / script writer.

Again this is Trevor talking nonsense, over half a dozen high profile directors have shown interest in directing a superman movie (JJ Abrahams, Vaughn, Bayona, Reed, Aranofsky, Vogt-Roberts, Ayer and Jenkins) and it is for this reason why I think that another Superman solo is inevitable.
Also we don't what's really happening with MOS sequel, maybe they're waiting for the audience response to superman in JL or trying to reach a middle ground with Vaughn or waiting to see how JW2 does before giving Bayona the get go or all of the above or some other reason.
All in all I think we'll get some solid news around September (if the golden circle does well and Vaughn gets what he wants) or more likely around November after JL comes out.

 

[Osiris-Rex]

Though given the ratings bump that the s2 intro for Supergirl got, you could argue that Superman *is* popular. . . he's just not being provided. There is a hunger in the audience for Superman, but its a hunger for *Superman*. Not for edgy 90s takes on what Superman "should" be.

Look how many people were calling for the CW to give Superman his own TV series after seeing that version of Superman. It was a lot.

 

[misslane38]

We don't, hence I put the "I believe" in the sentence. The fact is we know NOTHING for sure.

I agree. So if no one can really know anything with any certainty when it comes to this issue of popularity, what is the point in debating or discussing it?

As for proofs of Superman's popularity, well in the late 30s superman was selling millions of copies, was the main reading material for the GIs going to WWII and Hitler mentioned him by name in one of his speeches, not to mention that his massive popularity gave birth to the superhero comic-book genre.

In the 40s the kirk Allen movie serials were the most successful of their time, the Fleisher cartoons were massively successful and were nominated for an academy award and Superman was still the top selling comic-book character.
In the 50s superman continued to be the top selling comic-book character and the George Reeves tv show was massive while no other comic-book character had any media project remotely as successful as the AOS.
In the 60s Superman's comics were selling so well that lois and even Jimmy's comics were outselling Batman's not to mention that the filmation superman cartoons were the top rated of their time and actually make Filmation a legit animation house.

Popularity when you have meager from many other superheroes doesn't really say much, does it? This was also during this same time period that Captain Marvel (Shazam!) was outperforming Superman.

No I was referring to your statement of Batman ALWAYS being more popular - which isn't true - and not the context of the polls or the discussion.

It's a good thing I never said that, then. I said, "Batman's been more popular than Superman for decades" and "Batman has almost always been more popular than Superman." Both of those statements have qualifiers. The first limits my assessment to recent decades, and the second deliberately included the modifier "almost" to acknowledge that there have been periods during which Superman was temporarily more popular.

I discussed those ideas as a way to add context to the poll discussion for the purposes of pointing out that Superman not being selected as the "best" superhero by Buzzfeed visitors in the last month (who are, according to demographic data, mostly young professional American women who were being asked to make an all-or-nothing choice when they could potentially love all three heroes equally) isn't indicative of the DCEU films dinging his popularity, as he's been less popular than Batman for awhile now. Snyder didn't make Superman less popular, and comparing his popularity now to other periods when there wasn't this much competition doesn't seem entirely fair.

An accurate measure of popularity would be very difficult I would imagine, because comicbook sales mean nothing now due to the low readership numbers, movie ticket sales are skewed by the movie's quality and time of release and internet polls are skewed by the visiting site's target audience. One thing remains for sure is that superman is very popular and profitable yet he could and should be alot more popular but lacks a widely acclaimed movie to get him there.

I'm just not sure a widely acclaimed movie would make a significant difference. Batman is still more popular than Superman and most Marvel heroes, and since The Dark Knight Rises, he would have been appearing in so-called poor products. Heroes from successful and acclaimed MCU films don't seem to benefit too much from their films either, as a look at June 2017's comics sales data doesn't show Iron Man, Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, or Deadpool doing better than Superman. That is just considering comics sales, which itself may not be the best indictor. With so many problems finding appropriate data to support any assessment of popularity, I find discussions like these frustrating.

Even your suggestion that he could and should be more popular is a strange one to me. I would think that by now a character like Iron Man would be more popular than Batman, but he's not. I would have thought that the critical hammering Suicide Squad got would have hurt its sales and dimmed some of its characters' popularity, but the film did well and Harley Quinn is as popular as ever. If films like Wonder Woman and Black Panther are well-received and make Diana and T'challa more popular than characters that have been traditionally more popular, then that speaks to me about a changing audience who is hungry for something new and for long-awaited representation. Maybe Superman, no matter what the quality of his films or how financially successful they are, is as popular as he deserves to be right now, and that's fine.

I honestly suggest that you stop over thinking things like that, when it comes to pop culture characters people simply want to be entertained and for me and many others Snyder's superman was not entertaining. Also if people did think along those lines then WW, Cap and even Iron man wouldn't be doing well.

I think all factors, including societal factors, should be considered. I think Superman is recognized as far more a traditional character than Captain America and Iron Man, because he's been a part of people's lives in film and television for far longer than either of those characters. When the MCU began, it was a novelty to see these characters in live action for the first time. Likewise, to see the first female superhero in Wonder Woman or, say, the first black superhero in Black Panther all creates a draw. Basically, I don't see enough support for anyone to claim with confidence that Snyder has undermined Superman's popularity.

 

[The Batman]

So, in this analogy, does this make Timothy Dalton = Bruce Timm? t:

Lol, I'm not the biggest fan of STAS, but Timm was arguably more successful at Superman than Timothy Dalton was at James Bond. Not really Dalton's fault, though.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure the Superman franchise has the equivalent of Dalton as James Bond.

Though given the ratings bump that the s2 intro for Supergirl got, you could argue that Superman *is* popular. . . he's just not being provided. There is a hunger in the audience for Superman, but its a hunger for *Superman*. Not for edgy 90s takes on what Superman "should" be.

This I agree with. I never argued that the character wasn't popular nowadays, but the brand isn't as big as it could be due to WB's mishandling of the character in several aspects.

 

[misslane38]

This I agree with. I never argued that the character wasn't popular nowadays, but the brand isn't as big as it could be due to WB's mishandling of the character in several aspects.

How big could it be? How do you know this, or how is potential determined, in your view?

 

[Herolee10]

How big could it be? How do you know this, or how is potential determined, in your view?

Having a Superman film that is both critically and financially successful would be a start.

Superman being viewed as a equal to Batman and Wonder Woman in the media would also be a great goal to achieve.

I'm willing to bet a fortune that you will probably find more people who care about the MCU heroes than they do Henry's superman as well.

 

[DeadPresident]

Let's be honest a good number of those people are casuals whose only exposure to CB franchises is the MCU, so it's borderline irrelevant as they'll only be "fans" or "care" about the characters for as long as popcorn flicks are being churned out. As soon as the MCU movies are less frequent less and less people will care about the newly established characters, the entire CBM genre will end up being a generational fad. Iconic characters like Superman, WW, Batman, Spider-Man, Cap? They'll stick around forever. Henry's Superman will probably end up being far more relevant in the long run.

 

[Ninjablade]

Right now I feel Superman is in the same state Captain America was before Winter Soldier. First movie was good, but no one really cared, his appearance in the team-up film wasn't all that noteworthy so people clamoring for more. While agree Superman hasn't really been treated that well as a character (as opposed to Cap who was a pretty strong character), but I'll wait until JL and it's treatment of the character/how people react before I really question anything.

 

[Superchan]

This I agree with. I never argued that the character wasn't popular nowadays, but the brand isn't as big as it could be due to WB's mishandling of the character in several aspects.

Absolutely! Superman remains popular thanks to his iconic status and despite of WB's mishandling of the character, but he is no where near as popular as he could be had he already a widely acclaimed movie like Batman, Spiderman, x-men, Wolvarine, Cap, IM etc... The fact remains that superman is the only major superhero who hasn't had a widely acclaimed movie in the 21st century, infact he hasn't had a widely acclaimed film since 1981.

 

[sf2]

Absolutely! Superman remains popular thanks to his iconic status and despite of WB's mishandling of the character, but he is no where near as popular as he could be had he already a widely acclaimed movie like Batman, Spiderman, x-men, Wolvarine, Cap, IM etc... The fact remains that superman is the only major superhero who hasn't had a widely acclaimed movie in the 21st century, infact he hasn't had a widely acclaimed film since 1981.

so? should they keep trying or stop trying?
or they have already stopped trying???

 

[misslane38]

Having a Superman film that is both critically and financially successful would be a start.

I don't know. Doctor Strange was critically and financially successful, and I can't get a sense that his character has become more popular. I think new characters like him might become more familiar to people, but I don't know if people become fans and popularity grows. Moreover, characters could potentially improve their popularity, but that doesn't mean that they become the most popular or more popular than other characters. Wonder Woman, for example, may become more popular than she's ever been, yet her popularity may settle at a lower level compared to other heroes.

Films that are successful by the metrics you mention are more important and influential to less established properties. Batman has been around for so long and been so successful in ebbs and flows over the decades that successes and failures don't affect him as much. There is a base and and brand loyalty there. The same is true for Superman, I believe. Characters like Iron Man, Captain America, and Wonder Woman had been around for awhile too, but none had a live action portrayal on the big screen until recently. The effect of those films being critically and financially successful appears to have more of an impact as a result.

Superman being viewed as a equal to Batman and Wonder Woman in the media would also be a great goal to achieve.

I think he is. Why don't you think so?

I'm willing to bet a fortune that you will probably find more people who care about the MCU heroes than they do Henry's superman as well.

I'm not so sure. Granted it's not the best gauge because it can't distinguish between various media (e.g. DCEU vs. other DC), but Google Trends allow you to track and compare interest. If you compare Superman to, say, Captain America, Superman still has more interest (the same is true for Iron Man). Not to mention that it's a little unfair to expect the same from both given that Chris Evans and his Captain America have had much more time on screen in more films to reach people. First Avenger came out in 2011, and since then Captain America has appeared in two Avengers films and two additional solo films with other Avenger co-stars in the last one. There's also the issue of comaparing within the MCU. Presumably, one would conclude that several MCU heroes have had critically and financially successful films, yet not all of their heroes are equally cared for by the audience.

 

[Superchan]

so? should they keep trying or stop trying?
or they have already stopped trying???

You damn right they should keep trying! This is Superman we're talking about!
Also trying is only part of the equation, there is no point in trying hard if you're not trying smart. SR, MOS and BvS all featured an mopey, downer of a superman and so maybe it's time to stop trying to turn superman into some 99c version of batman and actually make a film featuring a hopeful, charismatic superman like Mathew Vaughn wanted (or wants).

 

[sf2]

You damn right they should keep trying! This is Superman we're talking about!
Also trying is only part of the equation, there is no point in trying hard if you're not trying smart. SR, MOS and BvS all featured an mopey, downer of a superman and so maybe it's time to stop trying to turn superman into some 99c version of batman and actually make a film featuring a hopeful, charismatic superman like Mathew Vaughn wanted (or wants).

then, the complaints of boring boyscout will echo so badly until you might almost turn deaf... LOL

btw, Mathew Vaughn was rumored once to direct MOS2.. when happened to this rumors? gone completely?

 

[metaphysician]

Assuming they put the effort into making a good movie, the only people who'll complain about a 'boring boyscout' are those who wouldn't have liked any actual Superman movie, anyway. No big loss.

 

[Limonade]

then, the complaints of boring boyscout will echo so badly until you might almost turn deaf... LOL

btw, Mathew Vaughn was rumored once to direct MOS2.. when happened to this rumors? gone completely?

It also depends on the situation you put the boy scout in and how he would reacts to said situation.

The boy scout trope is stilled hurled with Captain America: Winter Solder, but the way the type of story that was told definitely levied the boy scout trope in a way that wasn't really thought of before in the public's eye. Especially with a patriotic character like Cap.

Superman's boy scout traits is universal--it's how you put him in the story and tell it.

 

[_Superman_]

Assuming they put the effort into making a good movie, the only people who'll complain about a 'boring boyscout' are those who wouldn't have liked any actual Superman movie, anyway. No big loss.

That's your opinion. Because you can make a strong case that the boyscout Superman hasn't been around for a while now in the first place really since around the 90's. So people might just have a right to say that they don't want to see that type of Superman. Hell whenever DC did always try to go that route (boyscout Superman) they usually showed him crying which added more fuel to the fire of not wanting to see that Superman anymore.

 

[Superchan]

then, the complaints of boring boyscout will echo so badly until you might almost turn deaf... LOL

btw, Mathew Vaughn was rumored once to direct MOS2.. when happened to this rumors? gone completely?

And there in lies the problem it's always about extremes with fans! I mean I said "charismatic and optimistic" and you heard "boring boyscout"? Well guess what it doesn't have to be!! Balance is key here and a great film maker like Vaughn or Bayona are more than capable of striking the balance that Zack Snyder never even attempted.

btw, Mathew Vaughn was rumored once to direct MOS2.. when happened to this rumors? gone completely?

No one really knows yet, infact no one really knows anything, at some point all talks indicated that he might be doing flash then Vaughn's frequent writing collaborator indicated that he's still "in talks" and I think that when golden circle comes out and is a smash hit, WB will just throw in the towel and give Vaughn free reign to bring superman back from the ashes.

 

[sf2]

It also depends on the situation you put the boy scout in and how he would reacts to said situation.

The boy scout trope is stilled hurled with Captain America: Winter Solder, but the way the type of story that was told definitely levied the boy scout trope in a way that wasn't really thought of before in the public's eye. Especially with a patriotic character like Cap.

Superman's boy scout traits is universal--it's how you put him in the story and tell it.

is cap patriotic??? if he is patriotic, he will put the priority to the country & the people first than to his soulmate.

anyway, can a bullet kill cap? superman can survive a nuclear bomb.
don't you see the problem here? physical threat isn't a challenge to him. that's why BvS gave him the mental & feeling challenge, which to me is perfect.

i don't understand why you guys want him to be invulnerable in his "mental & feeling" state too.

people give him the "boring boyscout" remark because he is physical & mentally invincible. that's also the reason why there are no good stories for a seasoned superman. why they failed to give us a good superman movie since SII and have to reboot him... (can only do the superman origin story)

 

[sf2]

And there in lies the problem it's always about extremes with fans! I mean I said "charismatic and optimistic" and you heard "boring boyscout"? Well guess what it doesn't have to be!! Balance is key here and a great film maker like Vaughn or Bayona are more than capable of striking the balance that Zack Snyder never even attempted.



No one really knows yet, infact no one really knows anything, at some point all talks indicated that he might be doing flash then Vaughn's frequent writing collaborator indicated that he's still "in talks" and I think that when golden circle comes out and is a smash hit, WB will just throw in the towel and give Vaughn free reign to bring superman back from the ashes.

wasn't Christopher Reeve "charismatic and optimistic"in SIII & SIV?

 

[Superchan]

wasn't Christopher Reeve "charismatic and optimistic"in SIII & SIV?

sigh, yeah he most certainly was but those films were beyond bad, they were parodies, so it brings us back to that word I used, balance. A good character is only one component of what makes a good movie another very important is a good story.

people give him the "boring boyscout" remark because he is physical & mentally invincible. that's also the reason why there are no good stories for a seasoned superman. why they failed to give us a good superman movie since SII and have to reboot him... (can only do the superman origin story)

Since when? Batman beat him in BvS and supergirl beat him on her show and superman also happens to be the only major superhero to have been beaten to death so don't give me that 'he's invincible' nonsense. The only people who make this complains are writers with no imaginations and people who've never picked up a superman comic.
Look at SR, an island made of kryptonite? no prob superman just flies up and powers up by the sun then there is MOS, a beam of destructive gravity? no problem superman just screams and flies through it. You see the problem here, the problem isn't that he's overpowered the real problem is that the writers are too damn lazy to put superman into situations where he has to use his damn head. Action#775 or Johns's Brainiac storyline or the world of new krypton arc, all are superb stories that would make damn good superman stories and they all involve superman using his head to solve the problem and beat the villain.

To cut a long post short, take a charismatic, optimistic, intelligent superman and put him in a good story that brings out those qualities and you've got your self a good movie. Also I know it isn't easy to do this but for god's sake with all the 100s of millions of dollars that WB spend on this stuff it shouldn't be that impossible either.

 

[STARMAN]

The scripts are what is hurting the character. Not the character itself. This predates the DCEU and includes several movies before it.

That's why if there's a MOS 2, I'm curious about the screenwriter other than Vaughn who co-writes his scripts with Goldman.

It's also why I'm curious about any Whedon written Superman scenes.

 

[sf2]

sigh, yeah he most certainly was but those films were beyond bad, they were parodies, so it brings us back to that word I used, balance. A good character is only one component of what makes a good movie another very important is a good story.



Since when? Batman beat him in BvS and supergirl beat him on her show and superman also happens to be the only major superhero to have been beaten to death so don't give me that 'he's invincible' nonsense. The only people who make this complains are writers with no imaginations and people who've never picked up a superman comic.
Look at SR, an island made of kryptonite? no prob superman just flies up and powers up by the sun then there is MOS, a beam of destructive gravity? no problem superman just screams and flies through it. You see the problem here, the problem isn't that he's overpowered the real problem is that the writers are too damn lazy to put superman into situations where he has to use his damn head. Action#775 or Johns's Brainiac storyline or the world of new krypton arc, all are superb stories that would make damn good superman stories and they all involve superman using his head to solve the problem and beat the villain.

To cut a long post short, take a charismatic, optimistic, intelligent superman and put him in a good story that brings out those qualities and you've got your self a good movie. Also I know it isn't easy to do this but for god's sake with all the 100s of millions of dollars that WB spend on this stuff it shouldn't be that impossible either.

It is just a general perception people have on him.
Can you talk a little more on the good story you think it should be done on the silver screen?

 

[Superchan]

It is just a general perception people have on him.

Sure but I expect more from someone like you who seems to be a fan of the character, unless I'm wrong about that.
As for the general perception, well it's more like a misconception and yeah it's there but such misconceptions can only be broken by a well received movie that doesn't try to morph the character into something it's not.

Can you talk a little more on the good story you think it should be done on the silver screen?

Like I said Action #775, the Brainiac arc and the world of new krypton would all make fantastic superman movies if done properly.

Action#775:
This is essentially a superman only kingdom come story. After JL Superman is finally the hero that we wanted and deserve but with every action there is a reaction and the dawn of justice there has to be the dawn of rough justice administered by a group of anti-heros like the elite with the likes of Manchester Black and perhaps Metallo, Livewire and other superman rogues. Or perhaps they can strike 2 birds with one stone and bring in Black Adam in Machester Black role.
The film's title would be "man of tomorrow" since the story would ask the question; who's the man of tomorrow? is it the altruistic superman or badass antiheroes like the Elite or Black Adam.

The Brainiac Arc:
This could mix bits from Azzarello's for tomorrow storyline, red son and Johns's brainiac arc.
Imagine the film beginning with a rapture type event where millions of the world's most accomplished individuals (scientists, athletes, politicians etc...) have disappeared along with some of world's biggest monuments.
Superman and the JL try (to no avail) to solve the case and superman in the process gets alittle too protective of the world and becomes more pro-active to the point that the world and the JL get worried only for kal to catch a break (in the form of an SOS signal in kryptonian language) and he goes and hunts for brainiac.
From there he finds Brainiac's planet sized ship (essentially war world) and the millions of bottled cities that it houses). Brainiac informs superman of his background as the last survivor of the planet colu and how his mission is to protect civilizations from themselves, hence he monitors planets, selects their best accomplishments, knowledge and individuals and preserves them in bottles (essentially alternate infinite space dimensions).
Brainiac offers to make superman one of his 'heralds' but kal obviously refuses so he shrinks him down and sends him to the bottled kandor where he meets his extended family like zor-el (jor-el's twin brother played again by Crow), Allura (kate blanchett maybe), kara, his maternal grandfather lor-van and maybe even his older brother knor-el (as seen in one of siegel's 'imaginary stories').
Zor-el explains to kal how brainiac wants to control everything hence why he bottles civilizations thus making Kal realize that he - out of fear for earth's safety and guilt in failing to recover all the kidnapped humans - had almost turned into Brainiac by becoming too proactive and trying to protect the planet.
Kal is depowered and losing his gifts fast thanks to the artificial red son brainiac has installed but using his wits (and the help of zor-el and his kryptonian family) inspires the populace of kandor to break free and beat Brainiac.
The film would be called 'Superman the man of steel" since in the first half of the film people (out of fear due to superman's new pro-active state) call out Kal on his Superman the man of steel moniker since Superman is a term coined by Fredrich Nische and was later adopted by the Nazis while man of steel is the moniker used originally by stalin.

Both films touch on very important issues surrounding superman namely Superman's seemingly outdated ideals and the eternal question of why superman simply doesn't just 'fix everything'.

 

[All-Father]

The scripts are what is hurting the character. Not the character itself. This predates the DCEU and includes several movies before it.

That's why if there's a MOS 2, I'm curious about the screenwriter other than Vaughn who co-writes his scripts with Goldman.

It's also why I'm curious about any Whedon written Superman scenes.

Correct. A great script, leading to a great movie, can do wonders for the character.