how is this a good article?
where is the solution to make a superman movie that would make fans and masses happy?
all i read is a guy who is a fan of superman and thinks that he is perfect in the comics. all i see is a guy who needs to put down spiderman and batman to feel good.
'' He’s an example of everything a man should be…and what do we call him? Unrealistic.''
WTF??? so they should make a movie about a perfect alien that looks like a human and has red underwear outside ?
this is not a good article. this is just a fanboy writting about how superman is good to him. i respect that. but i got nothing out of this article.
Well, the article never said it had a solution, it simply answers the question that is its title with a 'Yes.' If the article was called "How to show how superman is relevant" then yeah, I'd see your point.
The reason the article is so good, and so many Superman fans are like 'hex yeah' because it shows how Superman is good to ALL his fans, as well as why he's not good to those who don't like him. It's an objective piece, not subjective as you imply. Honestly, is there any other reason to like Superman other than the things outlined in the article? Have you ever read anything else that has illustrated the point of superman in editorial format? Neither have I. Exactly, awesome.
I think also, when people make him all-powerful and all-good, what can be his arc? The only movie I can think of where the protagonist learned absolutely nothing by the end of the movie is (500) Days of Summer, and he still changed somewhat during the storyline.
Superman will have had to learn something about himself at the end of the movie, but in letting him be the perfect hero - strong, smart, moral - what can you do with him?
Not saying that finding a compelling arc will be impossible, but I think it's something that the author of this article has to take into account.
I don't think that was his goal. He was basically just saying 'should it be done' not 'how it can be done.' He didn't even mention movies directly, because that wasn't the goal of the article.
If I were to address your concern, but a strong, smart, moral hero is all the more challenged by their mistakes and limitations. Feeling alone is adolescent as one of a million mutants, but feeling alone as the last survivor of an alien race, who really is removed from society in a way, that's more serious. Feeling responsible for saving everyone is a messiah complex when you're web swinging, but when you move at the speed of sound, it becomes a bit more plausible.
Clark, in the first film, has to learn his place in society, not just as Superman, but as Clark and Kal-El as well. He's a lost leader and he doesn't know where to put his trust, if anywhere. That's a journey, it's a unique journey, but then again, not really, is it?
And like the article said, the best Superman stories test his morals, and like James Bond in a death trap, even faced with the impossible situation, he somehow finds the gumption in himself to pull it off every time, the stakes are always life and death. With the second film you can explore that, flip it, what if compromise saves lives, does Superman do it? How does he deal with that afterwards? How does he redeem himself from that?
Also, the key to making Superman relatable is showing how he became the moral person he is. When we spend some time with Pa Kent, and we find a guy that we want to be like, that we can genuinely admire, we can relate to Superman who wants to be like him too.
