Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

In the end, its all about acceptance. From all sides: WB, DC, fanboys, fans, haters, and the regular folk. The fight between them all is pointless because both are wrong, and those like me who has the correct answer but are overrun by the others is sad to say the least.

Superman is not just Reeve, or Cavill, or Welling, or Reeves, or Cain, because he's not one of these things, HE'S ALL OF THESE THINGS. So even if you like/love Superman: The Movie, if you have to like if not accept Man of Steel; that includes the story and the character's actions and motivations. Both are correct, its not one or the other, which the fights are about. If this is changed, Superman can be the unlimited potential character he is suppose to be, instead of the limited one he is being forced to be.

Only then can there be no problems with Superman movies, from their existence to their stories. And yes, that includes the acceptance of how good/great Man of Steel. Again, a fight that is so stupid and pointless.

That is your answer.
 
Why it's so hard? Because people will ***** about even if the movie's good.
 
That's because these movies were designed around set pieces recreating iconic moments from the comics that were reverse-engineered into 3 hour stories by a team who cares about actions and explosions above all else. As such, the characters and the development they undergo do not feel earned or impactful. Even if they included the "hopeful, smiling, optimistic" Superman it would fall flat. Characters are just there to hit the right beats and say the lines as needed to move the story towards the fireworks. That is not the recipe for a healthy franchise.

Spot on. This is the criticism of Snyder that rings the most true for me. He's a director of moments... but the connective tissue between those moments seem secondary and/or forced.

The next iteration of Superman needs to undergo a certain degree of editorial review before they commit, I guess. It's not clear to me that anyone in the MOS/BvS/JL teams were really concrete on who Clark was and what motivated him.
 
Something tells me all of the doubt and second guessing when it comes to Superman and whether or not he still has a role in the modern age will magically disappear once the Supergirl movie gets made and is met with huge fanfare.
 
How do we know Snyder doesn't like Superman? Before MoS came out, for example, he said:

It’s a more serious version of Superman. It’s not like a heart attack. We took the mythology seriously. We take him as a character seriously. I believe the movie would appeal to anyone. I think that you’re going to see a Superman you’ve never seen before. We approached it as though no other films had been made. He’s the king-daddy. Honestly that’s why I wanted to do it. I’m interested in Superman because he’s the father of all superheroes. He’s this amazing ambassador for all superheroes. What was it about him that cracked the code that made pop culture embrace this other mythology? What we‘ve made as a film not only examines that but is also an amazing adventure story. It’s been an honor to work on. As a comic book fan, Superman is like the Rosetta Stone of all superheroes. I wanted to be sure the movie treated it respectfully.

Snyder also said:

In every aspect of design and of story, the whole thing is very much from that perspective of ‘Respect the canon but don’t be a slave to the movies.'

I'm not seeing any disdain or hatred for Superman in the above comments. Can you share any comments you have come across that gave you the impression Snyder doesn't like Superman?
Actions speak louder than words. Superman is now about to be replaced by Supergirl and it's all Snyder's fault. His take on the character was a failure.

Also, why did you assume I was talking about Snyder and not Singer. :o
 
Of course the answer to the OP’s question is actually

because it’s hard to find a filmmaker that’ll do a good job of it.

That hasn’t happened since 1978.

Find the right writer/director, and we’ll get a good Superman film. Keep hiring people without the talent or vision and we won’t. Simple.
 
Actions speak louder than words. Superman is now about to be replaced by Supergirl and it's all Snyder's fault. His take on the character was a failure.

Also, why did you assume I was talking about Snyder and not Singer. :o

No one, regardless of how much he or she dislikes Superman Returns has ever to my knowledge suggested Singer hates Superman. It is a criticism regularly leveled at Snyder, however. Are you the lone exception? If so, what makes you believe Singer hates Superman? More importantly, it doesn't matter if Snyder's "take" on Superman was a failure. You claimed he hated the character, yet I see no evidence from you or anywhere else that is the case. Did Snyder approach Superman in a way that failed to resonate with a lot of people? I believe that's true. I don't think that has anything to do with disdain for the character.
 
Singer and Snyder proved that they don't like (or at the very least, don't understand) the character by making Superman Returns and Batman v Superman. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned; you're free to disagree, of course.
 
Singer and Snyder proved that they don't like (or at the very least, don't understand) the character by making Superman Returns and Batman v Superman. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned; you're free to disagree, of course.

I will fervently disagree with you. Singer and Snyder both clearly loved Superman: the latter loved Superman through the lens of rigid nostalgia while the other loved Superman through the lens of grounded realism. Just because they don't love the character the exact way you love Superman or others love Superman does not mean that their hearts were in the wrong place. Neither filmmaker devoted years of their lives to a pure expression of animus towards a comic book character. That's absurd and unfounded. What is clear, to me at least, is that Singer and Snyder represent the vast and varied ways Superman has been handled on screen and in comic books. To suggest these filmmakers misunderstood Superman merely because it appears they took aspects of the character at face value doesn't make much sense.

All of the seeds for Singer's Superman are firmly planted in the four Reeves films. The recipe for Snyder's Superman is a combination of elements from Golden Age comics, Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, Mark Waid's Birthright, Lester's Superman II, and Smallville. Superman has existed for 80 years, and in those 80 years the character has been reinvented and adapted to match contemporary interests and ideas. Singer's and Snyder's interpretations of Superman are not outliers but rather accurate reflections of themes and tropes that are quite familiar to Superman canon. Controversial elements such as Superman being compromised by his feelings for Lois predate Superman Returns; Jonathan Kent's overprotectiveness and the killing of Zod predates Man of Steel.

If one ignores the canonical basis for controversial storytelling decisions, then all that's left is a sort of general opposition to Superman's personality or demeanor. For Singer, one might argue his Superman is too passive and melancholy. For Snyder, one might argue his Superman isn't fun or warm. But Singer's Superman and Snyder's Superman are not the only versions of the character with these traits. Every version of Superman from 1938 until 2018 has been portrayed in this way at one time or another based on the context of the narratives in which each exists.

And that's what makes me wonder about accusations that these filmmakers don't understand Superman. I think these filmmakers do understand Superman. The problem is that the parts of Superman and his canon that spoke to them didn't resoundly resonate with the general audience. As a Superman fan for 25 years, since I first watched the pilot for Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman to my years of devouring every comic, television show, and film featuring the character, I can tell you with confidence that neither Singer nor Snyder radically changed or ignored core elements of Superman mythology.
 
And that's what makes me wonder about accusations that these filmmakers don't understand Superman. I think these filmmakers do understand Superman. The problem is that the parts of Superman and his canon that spoke to them didn't resoundly resonate with the general audience. As a Superman fan for 25 years, since I first watched the pilot for Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman to my years of devouring every comic, television show, and film featuring the character, I can tell you with confidence that neither Singer nor Snyder radically changed or ignored core elements of Superman mythology.

This in a nutshell.

For something to survive 80+ years. Sometimes it needs to be simply adapted(picking up bits and pieces and reworking them) and sometimes it needs to be updated.

Sherlock Holmes is survives in pop culture cause sometimes he's strictly adapted and sometimes he's updated.

Singer and Snyder adapted either sporadically from various comics(Snyder) or from previous movie(Singer). Neither really updated Superman which is what he's in need of. Unfortunately for them, unlike Marvel where the comics had done some of the work for the MCU(Thor's visuals. The Ultimates), DC hasn't really done a good job laying the groundwork for a modern interpretation since the 80s.
 
This in a nutshell.

For something to survive 80+ years. Sometimes it needs to be simply adapted(picking up bits and pieces and reworking them) and sometimes it needs to be updated.

Sherlock Holmes survives in pop culture cause sometimes he's strictly adapted and sometimes he's updated.
Actually...it needs to be updated and/or re-envisioned. That's what the popular toy branded franchises do.
The "strict" adaptions are for first-timers, as in this is the first time seeing this character outside the source, or for niche audiences like every other animated take.
When I think of adapted Sherlock Holmes nowadays, I think of In the 22nd Century, the very Guy Ritchie movies, the very updated Cumberbatch/Freeman or Lucy Liu series, the retired McKellan movie, or this upcoming Ferrell/Reilly movie.
 
Actually...it needs to be updated and/or re-envisioned. That's what the popular toy branded franchises do.
The "strict" adaptions are for first-timers, as in this is the first time seeing this character outside the source, or for niche audiences like every other animated take.
When I think of adapted Sherlock Holmes nowadays, I think of In the 22nd Century, the very Guy Ritchie movies, the very updated Cumberbatch/Freeman or Lucy Liu series, the retired McKellan movie, or this upcoming Ferrell/Reilly movie.

Sure. But I was taking into account Sherlock hasn't had official ACD written stuff in almost 100 years I think.


Sometimes, the comics do update ahead of adaptations. Byrne's update of Clark Kent is what has been the standard in live-action since. Same with his Lex Luthor. Marvel is using a lot of their post 2000 stuff as springboards for their MCU while picking and pulling from pre-2000s.

Riverdale and Sabrina are definitely inspired from the new stuff.

Flash and the next Green Lantern will definitely be heavy on John's modern interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Flash and the next Green Lantern will definitely be heavy on Johns's modern interpretation.
Well, they did jump off from Johns's New 52.

Superman-wise, if they wanna get a headstart with Rebirth adaptations, they should.
 
….There are plenty of dicks about but no Donner, that's why.
 
Sherlock Holmes is survives in pop culture cause sometimes he's strictly adapted and sometimes he's updated.

Interesting point, I think you may be right. Re-interpretations are fun but the classic must always remain a constant.

It's been too long since classic Superman.
 
Singer and Snyder proved that they don't like (or at the very least, don't understand) the character by making Superman Returns and Batman v Superman. It's that simple, as far as I'm concerned; you're free to disagree, of course.

That's complete BS and you know it. Singer likes Superman, Snyder likes Superman. Hell, I like Superman. Singer said it best "you have a character that's been on tv, movies, comic books, lunch boxes, that will all exist long after I'm gone, so in the end you have to find the things that meant something to you". As much as I don't like SR by any means, he was correct: his version of Superman was both Reeves and Reeve, and that became SR. Snyder's was a little bit of Donner's, little bit of Byrne, little bit of Smallville, Birthright, and the by then recent Earth One graphic novel, and that led to MOS.

If you directed a movie, this would be no different. Same as anyone else here, and same with me. Would I have taken let's say the Arkham treatment and created a hybrid of sorts with a twist that was my contribution(s) to the mythos and legacy, you bet.

What you said is just fanboy BS that is ruining everything now. Its not about disagreeing with you, its the fact that you're wrong, period. And need to stop.
 
It’s always odd to me when people call Superman “old fashioned” or “outdated.” Do some of you really not know any decent adults with a strong moral code? Because that’s Superman in a nutshell, and there’s nothing unbelievable about it.
I always think of this quote from my old IMDb days...
"Yeah, I can definitely relate to Spider-Man, who's so nerdy that nobody likes him, yet who inexplicably has his pick of big-tittied girls who all want to sleep with him for some reason. That's so relatable. I think it happened to me last week."

"I've said it before and I'll say it as often as I have to. The idea that Superman is not a relatable character is BS. He might not be especially relatable to teenagers, who might see more of themselves in Spider-Man or Batman (characters with a bad case of adolescent arrested development), but Superman is a character who relates more to the struggles of adults who have gone out to make their way in the world. Superman is what comes after you put down your silly "me against the world" mentality and adopt a less self-centered worldview.

When you lose a loved one, blaming yourself and bettering yourself out of guilt is Spider-Man. Feeling wronged and bettering yourself out of a need to lash out is Batman. Reflecting on the positive aspects of the one you loved and bettering yourself by emulating them is Superman.

And there's the very basic routine of how he conducts his life. Superman isn't a rich guy with a huge house and lots of cars. He's not a nerdy teenager who inexplicably has a dream job and lots of big-breasted female suitors. He goes to work. He has a good friend at the office, a boss with whom he shares an unspoken mutual respect, and a female coworker for whom he pines. His whole life is one of labors for the benefit of the world around him--not to sate personal guilt, get revenge, or anything silly like that--which is very much a working class thing.

It has nothing to do with power level, either. Saying you identify with Spider-Man more because he's less powerful is like saying you identify with MJ more because Shaq is taller."
 
It’s always odd to me when people call Superman “old fashioned” or “outdated.” Do some of you really not know any decent adults with a strong moral code? Because that’s Superman in a nutshell, and there’s nothing unbelievable about it.


That's actually an interesting question. For whatever reason the idea that someone might be brought up wanting to respect others, open doors, help strangers out, speaks honestly, is somehow old fashion. It might help to explain why there was such a divide over this Superman. If you're brought up in a cynical environment, where the outlooks are bleak, no-one can be trusted and strength is the only value worth measuring, then it's kinda of easy to see why Snyder's Superman would be appealing to some people. But if you're wanting someone who stands for something good, conducts themselves in a way that's respectable and goes out of their way to inspire others, then that Superman is not for you. This discussion about 'old fashion' make me wonder if today's audiences simple aren't use to the idea of someone being good because that's who they are.

I was in a park waiting for someone the other day near a big family who were having a birthday barbaque when one of the women who had just bought some ice creams for everyone came over to where I was standing and asked if I wanted one. Maybe this type of gesture was far more prevalent in the past, but because I was brought up in a world where 'stranger danger' was instilled in me I was taken aback by the offer. So, maybe Superman doesn't need to be this super complex character, maybe he just needs to present us with an image of what a good person is. It might mean him not being the most interesting character, but if you walk out of the theatre standing up a little straighter, with your head a little higher, and feeling more positive about yourself and other people, then maybe that's all he needs to be. Not every character has to have this dramatic story arc, filled with tension and suffering, sometimes simple is the best option.
 
Hmm, I've never seen that kind of analysis with Superman. I like that a lot!

I guess I wouldn't say that Superman's main problem is relatability. I'd say his main problem is motivation. Like... yeah... I know lots of good, old fashioned dudes who are just trying to do what's best. But Superman is more than that. Superman puts his life on the line without getting any credit, and it begs the question, why? What is it that compels Superman to put his life on the line, to sacrifice human connections, and such? With Batman - it's easy. He's out to make sure the thing that happened to his parents doesn't happen to others. For Spiderman, he believes that since he has the ability to save people, he has a responsibility to do so. But why does Superman do it?

The answer you get most normally is that Superman does good cause that's who he is. He's a do gooder; it's in his DNA. And if that's how it is, then so be it... but it's not exactly the most compelling of motivations.
 
Then maybe that needs to be embraced instead of scrutinised. I think we've tried too hard to make Superman be relatable instead of just accepting him for who he is. He's just a good dude. He's not without his problems, but he's just some guy who wants to help people out. It's a sad world if people are that cynical to think that no-one can be that good.
 
I think that's the magic of Superman. While all of us squabble over what's right or try to make things better for ourselves, here comes this alien guy with a heart of gold, who always puts the needs of others before his own. Superman makes us want to be better in our own lives. The simple nature of his goodness is inspiring.

It comes from no where... but it's best to embrace it. Rather than forcing Superman come down to our human level, they need to keep him where he is, so we can rise up to him. Superman is what we all aspire to be. That's partly what makes him a hero.
 
I think that's the magic of Superman. While all of us squabble over what's right or try to make things better for ourselves, here comes this alien guy with a heart of gold, who always puts the needs of others before his own. Superman makes us want to be better in our own lives. The simple nature of his goodness is inspiring.

It comes from no where... but it's best to embrace it. Rather than forcing Superman come down to our human level, they need to keep him where he is, so we can rise up to him. Superman is what we all aspire to be. That's partly what makes him a hero.
Then maybe that needs to be embraced instead of scrutinised. I think we've tried too hard to make Superman be relatable instead of just accepting him for who he is. He's just a good dude. He's not without his problems, but he's just some guy who wants to help people out. It's a sad world if people are that cynical to think that no-one can be that good.

More to the point, why is Hollywood so intent on making Superman fit into our world? Build a Metropolis where he does fit in.

Why does he need to only work at the Daily Planet? Why can't a new interpretation work as a freelancer for several publications? That's why Lois never puts two and two together. Cause she's not around him all the time.

Then you could use the old-school bumbling Clark in a more effective way.

As long as the world-building is interesting and coherent. People will buy in. No one criticized the Burton's Batman for not making sense to our world where a clown can buy parade floats without anyone noticing.
 
That's actually an interesting question. For whatever reason the idea that someone might be brought up wanting to respect others, open doors, help strangers out, speaks honestly, is somehow old fashion. It might help to explain why there was such a divide over this Superman. If you're brought up in a cynical environment, where the outlooks are bleak, no-one can be trusted and strength is the only value worth measuring, then it's kinda of easy to see why Snyder's Superman would be appealing to some people. But if you're wanting someone who stands for something good, conducts themselves in a way that's respectable and goes out of their way to inspire others, then that Superman is not for you. This discussion about 'old fashion' make me wonder if today's audiences simple aren't use to the idea of someone being good because that's who they are.

I was in a park waiting for someone the other day near a big family who were having a birthday barbaque when one of the women who had just bought some ice creams for everyone came over to where I was standing and asked if I wanted one. Maybe this type of gesture was far more prevalent in the past, but because I was brought up in a world where 'stranger danger' was instilled in me I was taken aback by the offer. So, maybe Superman doesn't need to be this super complex character, maybe he just needs to present us with an image of what a good person is. It might mean him not being the most interesting character, but if you walk out of the theatre standing up a little straighter, with your head a little higher, and feeling more positive about yourself and other people, then maybe that's all he needs to be. Not every character has to have this dramatic story arc, filled with tension and suffering, sometimes simple is the best option.

I think too often, the idea that he's Superman means everything should come easy to him. That he'd just cheat to get what he wants.

Kind of like how people believe rock stars or musicians or athletes make millions of dollars so they can't possibly go broke.
 
I think updating Clark's profession is an absolute must. As someone who worked in broadcast tv news, the profession is just very different than it used to be. Newspapers, even more so.

And yeah, the Clark identity would be a lot more buyable if he was more of a loner/freelancer instead of a guy who's in the spotlight constantly of a large city publication.
 
It's simple to me after seeing all the starts and stops and reboots.
WB thinks the very thing that has made superman so popular for so many years would be rejected by modern audiences, so they try and re-invent the wheel by making it square.
When that doesn't work, they try again with a rectangle one.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,505
Messages
21,742,326
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"