Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[Boy Scout]

Yet Captain America is more popular than he's ever been.

I have a feeling this’ll be said many times before the next good Superman movie comes out and people start acting like it wasn’t impossible all along.

 

[Skrilla31]

That's exactly the point. He doesn't need to be portrayed as being in the right of it. He can be wrong, he can be naïve. It's a solid hook bc it taps into the power fantasy of wishing you could take action against humanitarian crises, if only you had the power. Superman does, so does he just stand by? I like the idea of a Supes forced to weigh sensible diplomacy against human life. He'd spearhead initiatives and use his influence to affect policy, like in Peace on Earth, but if push came to shove, he'd interfere if it meant saving one innocent. Of course that'd open a can of worms, that's the fun of it. It's enough conflict for one movie and then some.

That’s fascism, seeing as no one really has the power to stop him. He simply can’t ‘impose’ his beliefs onto a people. Superman couldn’t change the world politically without also completely recreating it in his own image, which would be everyone’s greatest fear.

Honestly I don’t know if the thematic ramifications of Superman’s existence were ever meant to be this deeply explored. Otherwise you open up a huge can of worms.

 

[Nemeres]

That’s fascism

Not at all.

Honestly I don’t know if the thematic ramifications of Superman’s existence were ever meant to be this deeply explored. Otherwise you open up a huge can of worms.

You could've said the same about Batman and post 9/11 terrorism, but they worked that angle cleverly enough and made The Dark Knight.

 

[Skrilla31]

Not at all.



You could've said the same about Batman and post 9/11 terrorism, but they worked that angle cleverly enough and made The Dark Knight.

That panel you linked to isn’t an example of fascism, but that doesn’t mean Superman getting involved politically wouldnt lead to fascism.

Also no matter what Superman does, there are going to be people that think he’s doing too much and also people that feel he’s doing too little. People would start demanding Superman get involved the causes they deem important. Does he project himself into the conflict of warring nations? Whose side is he on? He was raised in America wasn’t he? Does he consider himself an American? At the end of the day there’s no way he could ever have the unanimous support of everyone.

Watchmen is really the best example of someone dissecting the material like this, as Dr. Manhattan is akin to Superman. But remember his ultimate takeaway at the end of the story was to leave Earth altogether and not get involved. I think that was Moore’s way of saying that Superman in the real world would be a bad thing.

 

[Madam-Shogun]

Okay but if Punisher had Superman's powers it would be the same thing. Those that are for, those that are against.

It's like that anyway, In-Universe for Frank

 

[The Guard]

Any complete exploration of Superman needs to involve exploring the idea that he will always have to walk a tightrope in terms of when and how to use his power, how much to impose his will on others, and recognize that there will always, ALWAYS be someone who hates and fears him for one reason or another, as well as those that love him. I thought Snyder's version got pretty darn close to that, actually.

 

[misslane38]

Yet Captain America is more popular than he's ever been.

I don't doubt that. Just being in well-received movies, and a lot of them either as a lead or part of ensemble, and getting to be played by an appealing actor like Chris Evans have likely done a lot for a character most people probably either didn't know at all or only knew from comics.

Although, I have a more positive attitude about DCEU Superman than most, it's indisputable that the films he's been in have been divisive and not crowd pleasers. I kind of disagree with Mandon Knight, because I feel like Superman's values aren't unpopular. I also believe Superman (in general, not just DCEU) and Captain America are pretty similar in terms of popularity. When Superman showed up on Supergirl, for instance, it was embraced. And, in box office terms, MOS did better than CA: FA and nearly as well as CA: WS (CA: CW is a bit more of an ensemble). So, I don't think it's the values of these characters that are obstacles. I think what has been tricky for DCEU Superman has been less what his values and actions are (even Donner Superman killed Zod!), and more how the public in his films reward or validate him and them.

In addition, Superman and Captain America have significant differences that may influence perception. Since Captain American isn't that powerful, there isn't as much expectation that he or his values can have as much of an impact on the world. He is also a regular human being (augmented with powers), so he doesn't have to deal with the complications of being an alien or drawing the kind of cosmic threats that Superman does. With Steve, people can project upon him something that's more attainable: he's a regular Joe who is rewarded with powers for being a good person. It's a Cinderella story. Also, Captain America primarily operates as a soldier. He starts that way, then emerges to work for a new "army" in the form of both S.H.I.E.L.D. and its Avengers. Since his films have only ever shown him as part of the U.S. Army or in the process of leaving those teams, we haven't gotten to see him as an independent agent in the same way Superman operates.

That's exactly the point. He doesn't need to be portrayed as being in the right of it. He can be wrong, he can be naïve. It's a solid hook bc it taps into the power fantasy of wishing you could take action against humanitarian crises, if only you had the power. Superman does, so does he just stand by? I like the idea of a Supes forced to weigh sensible diplomacy against human life. He'd spearhead initiatives and use his influence to affect policy, like in Peace on Earth, but if push came to shove, he'd interfere if it meant saving one innocent. Of course that'd open a can of worms, that's the fun of it. It's enough conflict for one movie and then some.

A lot of Peace on Earth is incorporated into BvS, interestingly enough, both in terms of its imagery and its ideas. Indeed, all of the ideas you've just presented here are explored in BvS with some exceptions. Part of the reason for these exceptions is DCEU Superman doesn't have enough of a reputation yet, compared to Peace on Earth Superman who seems like a firmly established and older hero, to be able to have the same kind of influence with the U.S. government whereby he can just show up and propose policy for legislative approval. Instead, BvS explores the same ideas using the hypothetical catalyst that is Nairomi while incorporating other narrative elements from comics like Birthright (Luthor frames Superman) and Greg Rucka's Unconventional Warfare (Lois is shot at while reporting overseas to get to Superman).

Any complete exploration of Superman needs to involve exploring the idea that he will always have to walk a tightrope in terms of when and how to use his power, how much to impose his will on others, and recognize that there will always, ALWAYS be someone who hates and fears him for one reason or another, as well as those that love him. I thought Snyder's version got pretty darn close to that, actually.

I do too.

 

[Nemeres]

A lot of Peace on Earth is incorporated into BvS, interestingly enough, both in terms of its imagery and its ideas. Indeed, all of the ideas you've just presented here are explored in BvS with some exceptions. Part of the reason for these exceptions is DCEU Superman doesn't have enough of a reputation yet, compared to Peace on Earth Superman who seems like a firmly established and older hero, to be able to have the same kind of influence with the U.S. government whereby he can just show up and propose policy for legislative approval. Instead, BvS explores the same ideas using the hypothetical catalyst that is Nairomi while incorporating other narrative elements from comics like Birthright (Luthor frames Superman) and Greg Rucka's Unconventional Warfare (Lois is shot at while reporting overseas to get to Superman).

I recognize the intended similarities, but the differences are fundamental. He doesn't go to Nairomi because he's aware of it as a troubled area that can use help; he goes there because his girlfriend's in danger. Whether there’s a precedent of him dealing with politically sensitive issues, the film doesn't say. Like I wrote before, for all you know this might well be the first time, and there's a component of personal stakes in it… so it's less a premeditated action with full awareness of the pros and cons of intervention, more quick response to a loved one's emergency. He goes to Africa like he'd go to anywhere Lois needed him. That leaves unanswered the “Would he? How?” questions that Peace on Earth is all about exploring. What I do see is the idea of how even when you try to do good, you can make things worse, which BVS does work with. But on a character level, there's just more to it. Peace on Earth is a story about initiative. Superman looks at the world around him, realizes the status quo ain't good enough and acts upon it. It's Superman The Activist -- which colors everything it says about that character in a geopolitical context. He uses the media in his favor, acts based on communication and realizes that tending to daily emergencies isn't all he can do. I understand BVS had a different agenda and its Supes is not an entirely established one who can count on that kind of influence. But that alone keeps it from mirroring POE in any way I can consider too substantial, and is often a diametrical opposite.

 

[MaceB]

Reading this last page, it occurs to me that Superman is a difficult character partly because he has such great power, that all of his actions have such great consequence. If he sits it out, he's wrong. If he goes in, he's wrong. If tries to help on the public stage, then he'll have to take stances. And from there, we go into a full on philosophical debate about what is justice and is it appropriate for Superman be weighing in at all?

With so many built in stakes, Superman can be a hard character to negotiate... especially in this politically charged time. Superman originated in a very different time and place, when the righteousness of the American cause wasn't questioned, and we knew who the enemies were. Now, our principle difficulty is deciphering what is right and what is not. Who's a villain and who's a hero? How can we trust this Superman character to know what's best for us?

And from a writer's perspective, it becomes very risky. Take even Superman IV, in which Superman aimed to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. Can you imagine doing that movie today? The political implications? I could easily see a lot of conservatives suddenly boycotting the movie. And why would writers want to risk something like that? They want Superman fighting aliens and such... which is great... but he has to come back to Metropolis at some point, and then we come back to the same moral conundrums.

Superman is tough. You either go big or go home.

 

[Madam-Shogun]

Reading this last page, it occurs to me that Superman is a difficult character partly because he has such great power, that all of his actions have such great consequence. If he sits it out, he's wrong. If he goes in, he's wrong. If tries to help on the public stage, then he'll have to take stances. And from there, we go into a full on philosophical debate about what is justice and is it appropriate for Superman be weighing in at all?

With so many built in stakes, Superman can be a hard character to negotiate... especially in this politically charged time. Superman originated in a very different time and place, when the righteousness of the American cause wasn't questioned, and we knew who the enemies were. Now, our principle difficulty is deciphering what is right and what is not. Who's a villain and who's a hero? How can we trust this Superman character to know what's best for us?

And from a writer's perspective, it becomes very risky. Take even Superman IV, in which Superman aimed to get rid of all the nuclear weapons. Can you imagine doing that movie today? The political implications? I could easily see a lot of conservatives suddenly boycotting the movie. And why would writers want to risk something like that? They want Superman fighting aliens and such... which is great... but he has to come back to Metropolis at some point, and then we come back to the same moral conundrums.

Superman is tough. You either go big or go home.

Basically, i was gonna write something kinda similar to this. But you wrote it A LOT better lol.

 

[misslane38]

I recognize the intended similarities, but the differences are fundamental. He doesn't go to Nairomi because he's aware of it as a troubled area that can use help; he goes there because his girlfriend's in danger. Whether there’s a precedent of him dealing with politically sensitive issues, the film doesn't say. Like I wrote before, for all you know this might well be the first time, and there's a component of personal stakes in it… so it's less a premeditated action with full awareness of the pros and cons of intervention, more quick response to a loved one's emergency. He goes to Africa like he'd go to anywhere Lois needed him. That leaves unanswered the “Would he? How?” questions that Peace on Earth is all about exploring. What I do see is the idea of how even when you try to do good, you can make things worse, which BVS does work with. But on a character level, there's just more to it. Peace on Earth is a story about initiative. Superman looks at the world around him, realizes the status quo ain't good enough and acts upon it. It's Superman The Activist -- which colors everything it says about that character in a geopolitical context. He uses the media in his favor, acts based on communication and realizes that tending to daily emergencies isn't all he can do. I understand BVS had a different agenda and its Supes is not an entirely established one who can count on that kind of influence. But that alone keeps it from mirroring POE in any way I can consider too substantial, and is often a diametrical opposite.

I understood about the fundamental difference in terms of the content of the story, at least in terms of Superman's choices, but in terms of the themes and ideas explored the result is the same whether Superman intervened for political or personal reasons. This is because the public and the narrative of the film reacts to what happened in Nairomi as if it was political and intentional, and they respond to it by starting to debate the implications of a Superman who, even if he didn't intervene intentionally and politically in Nairomi, could do so in other situations in the future. Superman engages in this debate with himself as well. Peace on Earth is a story about Superman learning that his initiative and agency isn't the solution to something even as simple as the humanitarian issue of hunger, thus concluding that Superman as activist is wrong. If you're looking to how BvS explores Superman using activism like he did in POE, you see it in his Batman investigation. He starts using journalism and escalates to intervention as Superman. Batman himself is used as an example of a hero whose interventionism has gone too far. In short, I feel like you're splitting hairs.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Any complete exploration of Superman needs to involve exploring the idea that he will always have to walk a tightrope in terms of when and how to use his power, how much to impose his will on others, and recognize that there will always, ALWAYS be someone who hates and fears him for one reason or another, as well as those that love him. I thought Snyder's version got pretty darn close to that, actually.

I'm re-watching Superman:TAS, and it did a much better job of exploring that than I had previously remembered. It wasn't just egocentric characters like Luthor and Livewire who resented him; a considerable segment of Metropolis questioned his motives and methods.

 

[Herofan]

Why is it so hard ? Essentially, because the ideals he stands for and upholds are not considered 'cool' anymore, they are considered 'boring and outdated' in this new tech world we live in.

The values that are at his core and deemed not to be 'relevant' or 'required' by society at large.

Yes, they exist today, of course they do, but the act of selfless giving, willing to put one's life down or own hold for somebody else are not considered part of human structure

Well that points to a potential issue with the character, he is described as (and also actually is) selfless but given all his powers and abilities, including (usually) basically invulnerability, and many villains being weaker (and his personal life usually not having much angst or conflict, to avoid that may be why Lois liking Superman and not Clark is sometimes emphasized) it can easily feel like he isn't actually sacrificing or giving up much, not as much as the narrative seems to be saying and promoting him to be.

TAS did have an antagonist dislike him because she thought things were too easy for him and basically just responded that they aren't as easy as assumed.

 

[JannTosh]

Superman, Superman 2, and Man of Steel are all good

 

[Vader's Fist]

According to Kevin Feige, the way forward for Superman, and the rest of the DCU, is to actually look back at Donner's version as an example:

https://screenrant.com/kevin-feige-dceu-richard-donner-superman/

Honestly, I wonder if the best move isn't to just throw a bunch of money at Feige and get him to produce a new series of Superman movies, once his tenure as president of MS is up. At this point, they don't have anything to lose by doing it.

 

[Jochimus]

According to Kevin Feige, the way forward for Superman, and the rest of the DCU, is to actually look back at Donner's version as an example:

https://screenrant.com/kevin-feige-dceu-richard-donner-superman/

Honestly, I wonder if the best move isn't to just throw a bunch of money at Feige and get him to produce a new series of Superman movies, once his tenure as president of MS is up. At this point, they don't have anything to lose by doing it.

I'm not entirely sure we need to go quite in the direction of the latter point, but as far as what Feige's saying, I'm gathering this as meaning making a Superman movie that's unashamed of being a Superman movie and doesn't concern itself TOO heavily with being anything other than that.

 

[Lencho01]

According to Kevin Feige, the way forward for Superman, and the rest of the DCU, is to actually look back at Donner's version as an example:

https://screenrant.com/kevin-feige-dceu-richard-donner-superman/

Honestly, I wonder if the best move isn't to just throw a bunch of money at Feige and get him to produce a new series of Superman movies, once his tenure as president of MS is up. At this point, they don't have anything to lose by doing it.

He's talked about it before. He's pretty much touching on what Donner always said about Superman and verisimilitude. So, understanding the character and how he/she works and going from there. We've seen enough times that TPTB who get a chance at Superman don't fully understand him and then turn him into something else that aligns more with their personal ideals, thoughts, feelings, etc. and it doesn't exactly work out. Also, of course, just creating garbage stories doesn't help.

 

[JannTosh]

According to Kevin Feige, the way forward for Superman, and the rest of the DCU, is to actually look back at Donner's version as an example:

https://screenrant.com/kevin-feige-dceu-richard-donner-superman/

Honestly, I wonder if the best move isn't to just throw a bunch of money at Feige and get him to produce a new series of Superman movies, once his tenure as president of MS is up. At this point, they don't have anything to lose by doing it.

as much as I like the Donner movies I honestly don't want to the new ones to be anything like them other than maybe Cavill being more like Christopher Reeve.

 

[Jekecy]

Raimi, Nolan, and Jenkins, all brought up Donner's Superman as a heavy inspiration in their approach to their respective origin films. Undoubtedly they're all great superhero debuts.

There's clearly something with that approach which still has resonance several decades later. Naysayers who can only focus on the camp have missed the point entirely.

 

[baerrtt]

Raimi, Nolan, and Jenkins, all brought up Donner's Superman as a heavy inspiration in their approach to their respective origin films. Undoubtedly they're all great superhero debuts.

There's clearly something with that approach which still has resonance several decades later. Naysayers who can only focus on the camp have missed the point entirely.

Donner's movie resonates and alternatively baffles because it's not really action oriented. Dramatic, comedic, romantic with a slice of disaster movie thrown in at the end wrapped up in a sci-fi coating is how I see the '78 movie and for fans who view comic book superheroes solely a s power fantasies rather than actual heroes that movie seems like an odd template to ape.

 

[dax]

According to Kevin Feige, the way forward for Superman, and the rest of the DCU, is to actually look back at Donner's version as an example:

https://screenrant.com/kevin-feige-dceu-richard-donner-superman/

Honestly, I wonder if the best move isn't to just throw a bunch of money at Feige and get him to produce a new series of Superman movies, once his tenure as president of MS is up. At this point, they don't have anything to lose by doing it.

DC already tried looking at Donner's version of Superman back when they asked Bryan Singer to direct Superman Returns. Fans hated that film so that led DC to reboot Superman into the character that we know today.

 

[Vader's Fist]

Going off topic here, but I've been thinking recently how I wouldn't mind a proper conclusion to Donner's version, whether in the form of a comic or animated movie. Granted, for the latter, Reeve and Kidder wouldn't be part of it, but it'd still be the same versions of Superman and Lois that they originated. Or is that idea too disrespectful?

 

[Lantern Venom]

Going off topic here, but I've been thinking recently how I wouldn't mind a proper conclusion to Donner's version, whether in the form of a comic or animated movie. Granted, for the latter, Reeve and Kidder wouldn't be part of it, but it'd still be the same versions of Superman and Lois that they originated. Or is that idea too disrespectful?

I'm not even a fan of the Superman Quadrilogy, but if DC made an animated ending to the Donner films, ala the new Batman '66 animated films, I'd have to check it out. WB should give your idea some thought.

 

[Herofan]

II was probably enough of a good conclusion already and IV an unnecessary but at least has-moments second conclusion/open-ended epilogue, further on it's probably best to leave to the imagination.

 

[STARMAN]

It starts with the creative teams and the poor scripts they have written. Superman has a better chance to succeed with creative teams comfortable with the material to begin with.