No offense, but all I'm seeing here are lame excuses.
I am just saying that you re judging the appeal of a version of the character based on a tv show. A tv show that might have not been as good as it could be, a tv show of a small budget that didnt allow it to have even half the action of Smallville, a tv show of the 90ies when apart from Batman there wasnt any other superhero franchise around. Superhero franchises have never been so mainstream before and they always carried that stigma of being cheesy and shallow just because they were based on comic books.
But lets see, by your logic, judging by the success that Brave and the Bold has achieved, a lighthearted Batman movie with talking gorillas riding on pterodactyls would be successful. Well i'll bet you my house that the general audience would never get it and the movie would flank.
I like how you tried to divert from the fact that people dont consider STAS definitive like they do BTAS, which was the main point.
They were both kid's shows. So maybe kids didnt like Superman as much and it didnt get the ratings of BTAS. Pokemon is very successful, does that mean that a live action movie would be successful?
The general audience doesnt have the standards and criteria of little kids of comic book fans. Nolan's success is based a lot on his realism (g.a cant stomach a lot of unrealism) and his great stories. It doesnt have to do with the version of batman that he chose. I bet that his batman is an amalgam of many versions of the character.
As for what the true fans consider "definitive", well maybe STAS wasnt that well made. I dont think that the fact that it didnt succeed as much has anything to do with the version of Superman that was used.
Because common freaking sense tells me that if WB were going to follow a modern day superman thats actuallly...MODERN, its not gonna be based on a take from 1978....and its not gonna be based on a take from 1986. It's probably gonna be based on John's Superman...the one that mixes everything from pre crisis to the smallville tv show together.
OK, again i need to catch up on Superman. I actually thought that he is still like in the 90ies but apparently DC is doing that recap thing on Superman as well (they did it to Batman as well). I really dont see why they have to embrace every version of the character. Each version appealed to its time and some of them were terrible, so why do we have to make an amalgam version of all these and create the current character?
Anyway, i dont know all the little details, but frankly what i was mostly interested about the 90ies Superman was the dynamic Clark. I could never get the buffoon Clark. Are there any other major differences between the 90ies and the current Superman or is it just that?
but that dosent give WB the excuse to rehash it for a new movie just because some fanboys want the same version on a bigger budget.
I am not asking for Lois and Clark. I just dont like the buffoon Clark. I frankly dont know if there are any other differences between those two versions of him? Are there?
For example its like hating stupid playboy Bruce and preferring the more serious philanthropist Bruce (i like them both btw).
Either do something that reflects the comics now, something original, or nothing at all.
Nolan's batman doesnt reflect the current comics, but it is something original.
Anyway, i am not asking for a specific version of superman, because i can hardly distinguish them. I am only saying that the buffoon Clark was just sad, pathetic and completely unrealistic. He doesnt have to be a complete idiot to throw off suspicion, just like Bruce doesnt have to be a complete ***hole to throw off suspicion. In BTAS for example he was a very serious and assertive philanthropist who would throw off suspicion by acting clumsily in front of many people, stating to others that he would never do dangerous sports and things like that.
So just by acting like a normal person + the changes in appearence that he applies + superman doesnt wear a mask and he is an alien + being absent minded (superhearing a crime for example) and clumsy
on occasion would be enough.
I am currently reading All-Star Superman and in a single issue he tripped over a 100 times. For ****'s sake! Do we want Lois to ever love him for who he is, or keep her in love with the Ken doll that lifts continents? I mean, i liked how Kidman's character in Forever said that girls have to grow up sometime and she realised that she cant be in love with a Ken doll and chose Bruce. But that isnt possible for Clark when he is ******ed.