Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[misslane38]

I just want to point out one scene in the DCEU which encapsulates the problem with that Superman. In MoS when Superman arrives at the military base all the soldiers are outside, weapons drawn looking nervous and uneasy as Superman floats powerfully above them talking to the general. He was made to look godlike. If that was a more traditional Superman he would have come down to the ground to the General's level and talked to him face to face to as a means to show he wasn't a threat. The little things like caring about other people enough to show he isn't someone to be feared were missing. A few changes here and there like that would have done a hell of a lot to improve the character.

I mean, the film literally addresses that issue with this exchange:

It's not about getting praised, it about showing the best in us as humans. There's a reason we have idealised versions of people in mythology, it's because it gives us something to strive for in real life. Whether it's a value, or a goal, or a physical attribute, history is littered with art that shows us the extreme and unrealistic examples of what we can be as humans in order to inspire us to aim for that goal, even if it remains forever unachievable. And that's what Superman should be. Yes, his physique is ridiculously toned, he's way too strong, his values are overly good natured, he's too handsome, he's always confident and people like him a lot. To that I ask - so what? None of those things are inherently wrong to want or idealise. Even if you can make the argument those thing exist in the DCEU, they're presented in a way that specifically calls many of those aspects into question.

Audiences don't question Superman's idealism in Man of Steel because he is not a good man who does the right thing. Audiences question his value as an inspirational figure because the world in which Superman exists struggles at first to come to terms with his existence. Superman does not automatically earn trust and praise. While he is able to inspire many people, especially those who doubt or bully him (e.g. Pete, Swanwick, Hardy, Bruce), others find it difficult to see past their own issues with God, which they have projected onto him. So, as a result of portraying the human inhabitants of the DCEU as falling short of universal acceptance and acclaim, audiences struggle to relate. Because, unlike the people of the DCEU, audiences are already accustomed to the idea of superheroes. Superman is such an iconic pop culture figure that it would be impossible for the audience to put themselves in the shoes of their cinematic analogues.

However, I think you'll find that those heroes who truly inspire and change people's lives aren't those who live charmed lives. If you tell a story that celebrates truth, then you can tell a story about Superman who has to earn love and trust. Hope is ultimately the byproduct because one can see that there is light even in the darkest places. People are inspired by those who are able to endure loneliness and rejection yet still seek to save and protect. Who embodies the ideals of of optimism and hope more: the man who forgives and trusts those who hurt and bully him or the man who is spared such an internal conflict because love and acceptance are easy?

The thing I don't think you're understanding is people don't like the idea of the idealise forms, either masculine or feminine, being broken. We can't on one hand say the female power fantasy in Wonder Woman, with her athleticism, strength, sexiness, beauty, confidence, charm, compassion and love, needs no explanation, but Superman, the equivalent male power fantasy, is subjected to scrutiny and needs to be questioned. The reason why Wonder Woman was universally love is because there's was no questioning of who she was. She was simply a girl call Diana who wanted to do the right thing. That's it. She learned some things along the way, she evolved as a person, but at the end of the day she was still just a girl who wanted to help people, just an exaggerated example of one.

You are once again ignoring the context. Both Diana and Clark are portrayed as individuals who seek only to do the right thing. Both have parents who are overprotective. Both have moments of failure and doubt. The key difference between Wonder Woman and Superman in the DCEU is point of view. Diana is able to exist in her narrative as bold, confident, and joyful because she feels she is living in a fairy tale world: the heroine of her childhood bedtime stories.

Diana's inability to see and engage with reality leads her to kill the wrong man and inadvertently contributes to the annihilation of Veld. As soon as the veil of fantasy is lifted, Diana abandons humanity, agreeing with her mother than mankind doesn't deserve her help. Her hope and optimism was built on a foundation of fantasy. It is only when she is able to love and embrace a flawed humanity that Diana acquires all of her powers and can defeat Ares.

We only see Diana at the start of her journey at the end of her origin story. She has only just awoken to the idea that mankind can only be led from darkness to light through their own choices. She concludes no hero can defeat the darkness in men's hearts, but she will fight and give to humanity anyway. And that's powerful. But since we never actually see Diana charged with the responsibility of confronting and changing the cynicism of the world, her new hopeful outlook is untested and unexamined.

Both Superman and Wonder Woman are unrealistic examples of who we can be as men and women. Both are unachievable. But both also have value. How many women walked out of that movie a year ago feeling like they could take on the world? How many young girls are going to become champion athletes or war historians or even just loving wives and mothers because of that ideal they now have? Now let's ask many people walked out of MoS or BvS wanting to be that Superman. The answer is probably not many, because the very concept of Superman was being second guessed.

The concept of Superman was being second guessed. But it was a question raised so it could be answered. Snyder does not leave us with a humanity that will never value or celebrate the hope Superman represents. All he does is show that it takes us a little while to get there, but in the end Superman is the light that shows the way. It is the essence of this quote: "You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards. They'll race behind you. They will stumble. They will fall. But in time......they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time...you will help them accomplish wonders."

This line from BvS sums it up:

"All this time Superman was never real, just a dream of a farmer from Kansas".

If you tell your audience there is no value in what's being presented, they simply won't care about it.

Selective quoting from the film reveals the gaps in your logic. The above quote is analogous to this quote from Wonder Woman:

"My mother was right. She said the world of men do not deserve you. They don't deserve our help, Steve."

Here we see both of our heroes at their lowest moments, but it isn't the end of the story, is it? No, it isn't. Both Clark and Diana find a way out of their despair because they allow themselves to believe in love. For Diana, inspiration and love come from Steve. For Clark, it's Lois who helps him cope with the nightmares. Those two quotes do not represent the full arcs of these characters. Wonder Woman will go on to defeat Ares because she believes in love even when it isn't deserved. Superman will go on to defeat Lex by destroying his plan to use Batman and then Doomsday as his executioners by sacrificing everything for the world that had turned against him. His sacrifice -- to give without guarantee of reward -- earned him the honor, trust, and respect he sought to inspire. Perhaps at one point Superman did seem like he could be a beautiful lie, but Clark chose to keep fighting and giving anyway, so in the end one of his enemies now his friend could say, "Men are still good."

Superman acting unlike his traditional self means the line is going to be interpreted by people in a way not intended. When there's senseless violence, a seeming disregard for human life, when the bad outweighs the good in the depiction that line takes on a new and unintended meaning. That's just the way some people are going to hear it.

I don't know about you, but I saw more collateral damage in three episodes of the 90s era Superman: The Animated Series than I saw in Man of Steel. And I have trouble with these labels of "bad" and "good" when the same character can literally do the same things, yet one Superman is good while the other is bad. I am quite aware of the fact that when it comes to DCEU Superman there is no end to the double standards that are applied to him and no one else.

Yep. Didn't like it. 35 year old man is clueless about his role in life. Layers of forced symbolism masquerading as depth. Dumb plot points. Laughable attempts to be gritty and realistic.

The superhero genre is based on wish fulfillment, fantasy. If I want a character study or Shakespearean tragedy, I can turn to other, much better films.

When I watch a superhero movie, I want to feel the excitement and satisfaction of beating the bad guys, saving the world, getting the girl. When we played as kids, not one of us said "Hey! Wouldn't it be cool if we spent an hour contemplating the impact our powers would have on the world?"

Making a Superman movie isn't hard. It is really basic stuff. It's the pretentiousness of some filmmakers and fans that make it unnecessarily complicated.

Thank you for proving my point that a big reason DCEU Superman is considered a failure is because Snyder rooted the character in realism more than fantasy. You know, Wonder Woman preferred the bedtime story too, but it didn't do her any good in the end. The foundation of her faith and hope was a lie, and it took staring reality in the face and accepting it for her to actually use the power of love to create peace. Bruce Wayne took comfort in the "Beautiful lie" that Batman could force the world to make sense until Superman entered the picture. Bruce couldn't cope with his fairy tale falling apart either. Superman's ability to hold onto hope -- hope that there was still some good in Bruce worth appealing to -- is what saved Bruce and restored Batman. What good are superheroes if all they do is reinforce comforting lies about the world and do nothing to show us the way to bring real hope to a crisis?

Pa Kent died so his son wouldn't be burdened with the choice of becoming Superman and yet years later he chooses to become Superman anyway, so yea it's a pretty stupid plot device.

Not to mention the Superman in Snyder's universe is still wholly unsure of himself and emotionally conflicted even heading into BvS, so it doesn't look waiting any longer seems to have helped.

He could have saved his father and ended up in the exact same spot.

Jonathan didn't die so Clark would never have to choose to become Superman. He died so Clark could make that choice for himself when it was the best time for himself and the world. Waiting wasn't about choosing a time that would guarantee success and confidence. It was about choosing a time when Clark was mature enough and strong enough to be able to weather the worst storms. Jonathan wanted his son to be ready to take on everything the world would weigh him down with yet refuse to break. Would Superman have ended up in the same spot? I don't know. What I do know, though, is that I have my doubts that a 17 year-old kid who still yells things like, "You're not my dad!" would have been able to handle everything 35 year-old Superman endured.

And as noble as that is of Jonathan, and it does speak to the good-old Kansas family values that Clark was raised with... I just don't really appreciate how that moment served Clark's character. What did it teach him? What meaning did he derive from that experience exactly? It feels like Snyder was going for something profound, and I'm sorry if I need things written out for me, but I don't get it. And that seems typical of Snyder's Superman movies.... it feels like there's a lot there under the surface, but he doesn't mind asking us to do all the work to undig it.

It taught him in very real terms what Jonathan tried to teach Clark throughout his whole life and reiterated as a memory in BvS. It taught him that choices have consequences. You can save your father from a tornado, but saving him could have ripple effects and consequences one has to be ready to confront and overcome. You can save the woman you love from a terrorist, but that could lead to a global existential crisis that creates a domino effect with explosive consequences. You can save one farm from flooding only to find that your efforts have flooded your neighbor's farm down the road. Power cannot be used lightly nor can it be used selfishly. It must be applied humbly and strategically. One must be ready to take on any consequences related to the imperfect application of power. In simplest terms, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. And, if you can do something and choose to do something, then you must do so only if you are ready for what comes next.

 

[MaceB]

It taught him in very real terms what Jonathan tried to teach Clark throughout his whole life and reiterated as a memory in BvS. It taught him that choices have consequences. You can save your father from a tornado, but saving him could have ripple effects and consequences one has to ready to confront and overcome. You can save the woman you love from a terrorist, but that could lead to a global existential crisis that creates a domino effect with explosive consequences. You can save one farm from flooding only to find that your efforts have flooded your neighbor's farm down the road. Power cannot be used lightly nor can it be used selfishly. It must be applied humbly and strategically. One must be ready to take on any consequences related to the imperfect application of power. In simplest terms, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. And, if you can do something and choose to do something, then you must do so only if you are ready for what comes next.

Hmm okay... that feels a bit thin to me. Seems like a pretty extreme way to demonstrate that point on Jonathan's part. I think we instinctively understand that Jonathan is trying to protect his son from the consequences of this inevitable choice he has to make.... but I don't think the film does a very good job of showing Clark internalize this lesson. Honestly, Clark describes it more in the reverse... he describes the event as his dad committing suicide, because he knew that he Earth wasn't ready... not so much Clark. He learned that although the situation demands it, and he may be ready, he has to wait for others to be ready before he acts.

Even if it were as you say, Doesn't it strike you as kind of a silly lesson in the first place? Like, no duh that it's best to wait to make a decision til your ready. The more valuable question.. and the more pressing one for Clark, is how do you know when you are ready? Your answer really demonstrates the vague nature of Snyder's storytelling style, and how he really asked his audiences to connect the dots. Like, if you polled 100 people on what that scene was about, would a clear majority say that scene was about teaching Clark that he should wait til he's truly ready? I suspect not. And even if they did... I don't particularly appreciate the value of that lesson. Is that really the lesson that Clark needed? Hurry up and wait? You're trying to grow up too fast? If that's the lesson, than Jonathan feels more like an obstacle to overcome rather than a source of inspiration.

 

[SgtRob]

Actually, I said that the attempts at realism were laughable. Your dissertations about comic book movies proves my point that some ppl take a simple idea and complicate unnecessarily.

Gimme a superhero who fights the bad guys. Period. That would inspire others to stand up for their communities. I am not inspired by a grown man who scowls while he saves lives. It's like watching a mopey teenager when they are told to take out the trash.

 

[STARMAN]

Superman's entire narrative arc from MoS to BvS was about how he could ultimately find joy in the never-ending battle despite unintended consequences like Wallace Keefe and little extrinsic praise or support for his efforts. In both MoS and BvS, the film ends with Superman happily embracing his life and his self-selected mission. He is even able to embrace death with joy. So why is the last impression not the lasting impression? I don't know.

The end scene of MOS does not have a lasting impression because he starts off at a different place in the beginning of BvS. I love that last scene in MOS. It might be my favorite of the three films but the Clark Kent of the last scene is not there for most of BvS. We then endure for two and half hours nothing of which I particularly find joyous including his death.

 

[Lencho01]

It's been said like a million times, but a character like Superman ain't that hard to do right on film. You just need the right people to make it happen.

And watch until the end.

 

[Predator jp]

think the biggest problem of Pa kent's death scence is that Clark doesn't look his age. he looks way too old to obey his dad.

 

[Abudefduf]

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.

No, I stand by what I said. Singer and Snyder like the character so much that they made two terrible Superman movies that killed Superman movies for the time being. That's how much they like and understand him.

 

[Swagneto]

Singer's Superman movie didn't resemble Donner's in the slightest.

The theme music was the same, but that was about it.

 

[MewMewTwo]

I really don't know that people are actually calling for such a Superman if they reject the DCEU one. It's not an either/or situation. They just want a good movie, and the general consensus is that these movies are not good overall. Again, I say that as someone who likes MOS, but it's much more difficult to enjoy it now that we know it's flawed but interesting ideas will never be realized effectively

Wonder Woman proves what people want. Jenkins cited the Christopher Reeves film as a major influence, and she was able to effectively modernize that tone in her movie, she just applied it to a different hero. Wonder Woman is a female power fantasy who has an uplifting story and is able to be fun and charismatic, but she doesn't have everything easy either, nor is she presented as a flawless individual. it cannot be difficult at all to apply the same modernized tone to the actual character that starred in the original, they've effectively already done it with Diana. Arguably before that with Raimi's Spider-Man films. Jenkins is also a more competent director than Snyder in most areas. A Superman who has to overcome struggles or has tragedy in his life isn't the problem, because that's baked into the character's DNA. It's the execution. Jenkins or somebody like her could nail it whereas Snyder's hasn't landed with enough people the way this brand needed it to.

It trickles down to the cinematic couples as well. Which one has been more widely embraced? Gadot and Pine. They have good chemistry and were able to improvise and have fun banter together. Clark and Lois are a couple who should have that, they've always had that, and Cavill and Adams are very charming together in interviews. They were not afforded the same opportunities to show that chemistry in the actual films, and we missed out on a lot because of it.



Because it wasn't effectively done. Especially in the theatrical cut of BvS, the one the majority of audiences saw/heard about, in which most of his scenes were cut out. If that impression isn't being left on enough people, it's down to the execution of the art.

Wonder Woman is a generic superhero origins movie that we already saw a thousand times before with nothing really remarkable, is just shallow forgettable spectacle, i know that is exactly that what most people want thought, at least the ones who do not read comic books.
Also is certainly not a female power fantasy.
The movie is like any mcu movie but with the humor flowing naturally into the narrative instead of shoe-horned into the script (we are gonna see more of DC cloning the mcu formula btw, just wait). It had a weak third act, a weak villain, a "light and fun" family friendly tone, etc.
Jenkins did a competent job that could also have been done by anyone, is a studio movie unlike most stuff from Snyder which while also being studio mandated is also deeply personal.
And BvS theatrical cut is the incomplete cut of the movie, it does not count.

In regards to this thread, we got MoS and BvS, we were gonna get JL and two more movies with Superman in it after that but WB/DC screwed everything up. But we did get two good Superman movies. With a good script you can make a good movie out of any character. And he is NOT "unrelatable" as some people said, that is just crazy talk.

 

[fan4stic]

Wonder Woman is a generic superhero origins movie that we already saw a thousand times before with nothing really remarkable, is just shallow forgettable spectacle, i know that is exactly that what most people want thought, at least the ones who do not read comic books.
Also is certainly not a female power fantasy.
The movie is like any mcu movie but with the humor flowing naturally into the narrative instead of shoe-horned into the script (we are gonna see more of DC cloning the mcu formula btw, just wait). It had a weak third act, a weak villain, a "light and fun" family friendly tone, etc.
Jenkins did a competent job that could also have been done by anyone, is a studio movie unlike most stuff from Snyder which while also being studio mandated is also deeply personal.
And BvS theatrical cut is the incomplete cut of the movie, it does not count.

In regards to this thread, we got MoS and BvS, we were gonna get JL and two more movies with Superman in it after that but WB/DC screwed everything up. But we did get two good Superman movies. With a good script you can make a good movie out of any character. And he is NOT "unrelatable" as some people said, that is just crazy talk.

WW, for all it's faults, explores emotions and real darkness in life. It's not light and fun. People just act like people to me. Like TDKT. Diana sees a village die, women and children and she breaks down over it and blames Steve and has an emotional reaction of questioning humanity because of the evil they do. That's heavier than anything in MOS and BvS. It treats it with harshness and emotion. The MCU hasn't had a truly weak villain in since AOU to me. But I don't see how Ares is anymore weak than Lex and Zod, though Michael Shannon I think might give a better performance.

 

[MewMewTwo]

WW, for all it's faults, explores emotions and real darkness in life. It's not light and fun. People just act like people to me. Like TDKT. Diana sees a village die, women and children and she breaks down over it and blames Steve and has an emotional reaction of questioning humanity because of the evil they do. That's heavier than anything in MOS and BvS. It treats it with harshness and emotion. The MCU hasn't had a truly weak villain in since AOU to me. But I don't see how Ares is anymore weak than Lex and Zod, though Michael Shannon I think might give a better performance.

It has a way more light and adventurous tone that MoS by example, it resembled A LOT the tone of a mcu movie. The stuff abut humanity was good but it was just left in the air because Ares appeared and it was all just him. It was totally miscast too, that guy is a good actor but it just did not fitted the role, it was an old guy in an armor. Zod was good and Lex was too, Ares was kinda generic like the whole third act. I liked the movie but i expect something else than just entertainment, that is the problem.
I dont want to even start about the mcu, Thanos was good, he was a monster, but the others, a big MEH, Killmonger was meh, that girl from Ant-Man and the Wasp was weak, Zemo was meh, the bad guy from Doctor Strange was okay but that "dance" scene was really bad (besides in the mcu they cut scenes that they should not), as a whole they are underdeveloped. The Iron Man trilogy had three weak villains, the Captain America but Red Skull too, Loki was good in the first movie then it was turned into a joke, Malekith was decent, Yellowjacket was bad, Ronan was overacted, Ego was good but too many jokes, Hela was really bad and really out of character, Ultron was a dissapointment for the most part (his first two scenes are good), the Vulture was bad, besides they never go beyond "evil mirror of the hero that is not developed at all" except Thanos, Marvel has so many great villains, they need to dare for more!

 

[fan4stic]

It has a way more light and adventurous tone that MoS by example, it resembled A LOT the tone of a mcu movie. The stuff abut humanity was good but it was just left in the air because Ares appeared and it was all just him. It was totally miscast too, that guy is a good actor but it just did not fitted the role, it was an old guy in an armor. Zod was good and Lex was too, Ares was kinda generic like the whole third act. I liked the movie but i expect something else than just entertainment, that is the problem.
I dont want to even start about the mcu, Thanos was good, he was a monster, but the others, a big MEH, Killmonger was meh, that girl from Ant-Man and the Wasp was weak, Zemo was meh, the bad guy from Doctor Strange was okay but that "dance" scene was really bad (besides in the mcu they cut scenes that they should not), as a whole they are underdeveloped. The Iron Man trilogy had three weak villains, the Captain America but Red Skull too, Loki was good in the first movie then it was turned into a joke, Malekith was decent, Yellowjacket was bad, Ronan was overacted, Ego was good but too many jokes, Hela was really bad and really out of character, Ultron was a dissapointment for the most part (his first two scenes are good), the Vulture was bad, besides they never go beyond "evil mirror of the hero that is not developed at all" except Thanos, Marvel has so many great villains, they need to dare for more!

It had darker, more real things than MOS. It wasn't Ares. He was just giving ideas.

I think all of them were as generic as Ares, say for their different performances.

I forgot about DS admittedly. lol. I'd disagree that IM 1/2 villains were weak. Killmonger, Vulture and Zemo was better than the DCEU villains to me. I don't see how Hela was OOC. I don't see how jokes are bad for Ego.

 

[Binker]

No, I stand by what I said. Singer and Snyder like the character so much that they made two terrible Superman movies that killed Superman movies for the time being. That's how much they like and understand him.

You're a fanboy troll. Just leave and stop bothering us.

Can we block this guy?

 

[SiegePerilous]

Wonder Woman is a generic superhero origins movie that we already saw a thousand times before with nothing really remarkable, is just shallow forgettable spectacle, i know that is exactly that what most people want thought, at least the ones who do not read comic books.

The ones who do not read comic books are the ones the studio depends on for success. If they embraced Wonder Woman but not MOS, too bad. They have spoken, and they need to be appealed to. Their opinions matter more than ours.

Also is certainly not a female power fantasy.

Judging by how many girls and women left the theater feeling elated at seeing the character on the big screen, this statement could not be more false.

Jenkins did a competent job that could also have been done by anyone, is a studio movie unlike most stuff from Snyder which while also being studio mandated is also deeply personal.

A competent job is something Snyder did not seem to be capable of for most people, so she has him beat in that regard. His best DCEU outing is MOS, and that is extremely divisive and flawed. His films may try to be deep, but trying is very different than actually succeeding. He has ambition, and he can deliver some great indivdual scenes which is why BvS can be an interesting mess at times, but putting it all together as a cohesive whole is not something he has been shown to be capable of.

And BvS theatrical cut is the incomplete cut of the movie, it does not count.

Doesn't matter, it's the one the majority of casual audiences saw, thus contributing to the DC brand having a weak reputation outside of WW. I don't know if the director's cut would have earned a much better reputation.

In regards to this thread, we got MoS and BvS, we were gonna get JL and two more movies with Superman in it after that but WB/DC screwed everything up. But we did get two good Superman movies. With a good script you can make a good movie out of any character. And he is NOT "unrelatable" as some people said, that is just crazy talk.

We did not get two Superman movies. We got one flawed one with promise for the future had they taken more care going forward and given the sequel to a different director, but we know how that turned out. BvS was more of a Batman movie than a Superman one. Snyder's aborted plans didn't sound much better than what we actually got. JL may have saved us from something worse, but allowing Cavill to actually display the emotions we want to see from Superman has come too little, too late and we likely will not be moving forward with Cavill, or the character in general for the near future.

I do agree that he isn't unrelateable. Using relateable as shorthand for why a character is good has always been nonsense anyway. You don't need to completely relate to a character to find them interesting.

 

[unholyrevenger]

No, I stand by what I said. Singer and Snyder like the character so much that they made two terrible Superman movies that killed Superman movies for the time being. That's how much they like and understand him.

Not according to critics, and it's not Snyder's fault "Fans" don't understand basic character development.

Singer's Superman movie didn't resemble Donner's in the slightest.

The theme music was the same, but that was about it.

Donner's Superman is a creep, Singer's Superman is a creep. He totally nailed it.

 

[All-Father]

So many reasons:

Why DC Films Doesn't Need Henry Cavill Or A Superman

The Box Office Problem With 'Superman' Movies Is Superman

If you look at the history of Superman’s various appearances in film, television, and (for example) video games, you’ll notice that the Man of Steel was usually only the king of the mountain in a given medium when he was the first one to the mountaintop.

We can debate whether or not the world needs a Superman. But the world may just not want a Superman cinematic franchise no matter how much Warner Bros. tries to give them one.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/mark-millar-has-an-interesting-about-theory-why-marvel-1823282223

People will slam me for this but I think the evidence is there. We’ve seen great directors, great writers and great actors, tonnes of money thrown at them, but these films aren’t working. I think they are all too far away from when they were created. Something feels a little old about them, kids look at these characters and they don’t feel that cool. Even Superman, I love Superman, but he belongs to an America that doesn’t exist anymore. He represents 20th Century America and I think he peaked then.

And there are many more sites about how the movies don't work.

 

[Herofan]

A big part of the problem with Singer's and Snyder's films is just that too much money was spent on them so the studio's financial expectations were too high.

Audiences may also want or expect more humor than the filmmakers like to have.

 

[Limonade]

I think it's the people that make these big budget films, currently.

Because you see current adaptations of Superman in the CW and the animated tv/movies and as far as the character is concerned... they nailed it.

It stands to reason given a smaller budget but a solid cast and crew could work for the big screen. It's just finding the right talent and not being afraid to embrace the material.

Fiege once said, everything there is to make a great Superman film is in the comics--or something like that. So just stick to it and know when to branch off and do something different.

I have my list of they should and shouldn't do with Superman, myself. Such as, Clark shouldn't lose his dual identity to Lois so quickly. Because there's a single-male aspect there that relates to all of us growing up even in our early 20s. There a lot of lessons to be learned for us guys, when Lois doesn't not who Superman is, but Clark wanting Lois to see him for who he truly is... and sometimes he's a dork about it... like all guys when they're with a girl they like.

When Snyder and Singer did it... it was always a bit jarring and made the story line a bit duller because of it.

Not saying she shouldn't know eventually... but those are traditional comic paces and also ingredients that made him endearing to the general public. Misslane might disagree... but then again, there's so many things in that aspect alone that humanizes Clark to us, as the audience.

 

[Nemeres]

I think what's difficult, more than "understanding" Superman, is to dramatize him in a way that maximizes the assets and avoids the pitfalls. Both Singer and Snyder were onto something with their core ideas, I think. But those films lose steam quickly because, behind the big elaborate premise, the character at the center is dull. He just is. And the directors are ok with it. In making him vulnerable, which is a must, he ends up coming across as stalky. Or needy. Or inactive. Or lethargic. Or malleable. Or indifferent. Or dumb. Or really dumb. He gets dramatized with insufficient counterbalance to the character foibles they give him and he eventually becomes easy to disengage with.

It's ironic how both Singer and Snyder went in with the mission statement of making Superman "modern", but they ended up falling into exactly the traps that can make him inaccessible as a character. Stodgy, self-serious, in need to unclench, a powers-over-personality approach. Even looks-wise, there's Routh's goofy 1st communion haircut or Cavill's BVS Dracula look. It's all too prim or aged ahead of time. I'd like maybe a bit of youthful exuberance thrown in at some point.

 

[flickchick85]

I think what's difficult, more than "understanding" Superman, is to dramatize him in a way that maximizes the assets and avoids the pitfalls. Both Singer and Snyder were onto something with their core ideas, I think. But those films lose steam quickly because, behind the big elaborate premise, the character at the center is dull. He just is. And the directors are ok with it. In making him vulnerable, which is a must, he ends up coming across as stalky. Or needy. Or inactive. Or lethargic. Or malleable. Or indifferent. Or dumb. Or really dumb. He gets dramatized with insufficient counterbalance to the character foibles they give him and he eventually becomes easy to disengage with.

It's ironic how both Singer and Snyder went in with the mission statement of making Superman "modern", but they ended up falling into exactly the traps that can make him inaccessible as a character. Stodgy, self-serious, in need to unclench, a powers-over-personality approach. Even looks-wise, there's Routh's goofy 1st communion haircut or Cavill's BVS Dracula look. It's all too prim or aged ahead of time. I'd like maybe a bit of youthful exuberance thrown in at some point.

Agreed. I've been re-watching Lois & Clark lately, and I've realized the thing that keeps me coming back to that show is how Clark Kent is such a lovable dork in it - he drops jelly on his tie when eating donuts, he comes up with absolutely TERRIBLE excuses for when he's been off being Superman, amuses himself by using his powers when playing baseball or basketball...against himself, reserves tickets to a Pearl Jam concert for a date with Lois then stresses out when he founds out the price, never met a street or carnival food he wouldn't devour (seriously, I feel like more attention should be paid to how Superman has the diet of a 10 year old!), gets caught up in petty competitiveness against Lois at work quite often just like most of us would, isn't above a good corny dad joke, and yet is generally looked at by everybody he meets as an honest, good dude who would always do what's right and be there for his friends. Lois even describes Superman one time as "pretty much like Clark, just...more evolved." Point being, he's got quirks and part of those come from how "uncool" he is, as it makes him more endearing, and they need to embrace those more, imo. Avoid the "powers-over-personality" approach next time.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

It's ironic how both Singer and Snyder went in with the mission statement of making Superman "modern", but they ended up falling into exactly the traps that can make him inaccessible as a character. Stodgy, self-serious, in need to unclench, a powers-over-personality approach. Even looks-wise, there's Routh's goofy 1st communion haircut or Cavill's BVS Dracula look. It's all too prim or aged ahead of time. I'd like maybe a bit of youthful exuberance thrown in at some point.

Bingo.

It still feels like they’re bringing their memory of Superman to the screen, and as a result he doesn’t quite feel like a real guy. This is everything from speech patterns to hairstyles.

 

[RomanticPenguin]

Having a director that doesn't have pedo or ayn rand worshiping or infidelity issues is a good start IMO

for 40 years superman fans have been waterboarded with this crap

#Paddington4Superman

 

[Vader's Fist]

Having a director that doesn't have pedo or ayn rand worshiping or infidelity issues is a good start IMO

for 40 years superman fans have been waterboarded with this crap

#Paddington4Superman

Who had Infidelity issues?

 

[RomanticPenguin]

Who had Infidelity issues?

whedon

 

[Mindreaper21]

Making a good Superman movie isn't necessarily hard, its just that the entire character is extremely complex. One major problem here is how Superman is viewed as a hero.
The type of hero that people believe Superman to be is very subjective. It's because of all of these opinions that leads to Superman being an underdeveloped character.
There are people that have, in their minds, this perfect idea of Superman and anything other that is just wrong. Though, how can anything perfect, develop?
Every time something new is explored with Superman, fans have endless complaints and then writers back step and draw from the same material that has caused debates for years.
There are people that want some change to the character, but any change will be met with swift action by someone who feels that it comes into conflict with their perfect idea.
There are people that still haven't realized that Clark Kent is their favorite hero and not Superman.

Then there are other problems such as how he is viewed as an alien, his morals, his villains and the story in general.
The point is that people can't agree on who Superman is as a whole and it's because of that, they can't figure out where to take his character, but backwards.
So, there will never be a movie nor even a game that will satisfy a majority.