Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[Herofan]

I have to point out that comic book fans can be pretty hard to please in general; a lot think that of the 8 modern live action Batman films only two were good, of the 6 X-Men films only one or two were good.

 

[samsnee]

I think the main problem is he’s just too overpowered. There’s nothing he can’t just punch his way out of and when they try to depower him with kryptonite it feels cliche.

 

[FunkMiller]

I think the main problem is he’s just too overpowered.

Why does this keep getting trotted out when we have successful Thor and Hulk movies?

He isn’t overpowered. He’s just had underpowered directors.

 

[Boy Scout]

My thing is...if you think a hero is incredibly powerful...wouldn’t the solution be to put him or her up against a villain who’s equally or more powerful?

 

[samsnee]

My thing is...if you think a hero is incredibly powerful...wouldn’t the solution be to put him or her up against a villain who’s equally or more powerful?

They did with Zod. The problem there was it just became destruction porn.

I agree with the poster who said they should focus more on Clark. How does he balance his life between being basically a god among men and a Kansas small town boy?

 

[samsnee]

Why does this keep getting trotted out when we have successful Thor and Hulk movies?

He isn’t overpowered. He’s just had underpowered directors.

Well outside of Avengers, Thor lives in a world with similar powered beings.

 

[Boy Scout]

They did with Zod. The problem there was it just became destruction porn.

Well yeah, but I feel like those are two separate issues.

I agree with the poster who said they should focus more on Clark. How does he balance his life between being basically a god among men and a Kansas small town boy?

Definitely.

 

[Herofan]

Why does this keep getting trotted out when we have successful Thor and Hulk movies?

They weren't that successful.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They weren't that successful.

The last one, featuring both of them, grossed more than $850 million and got stellar reviews. That's pretty damn successful.

 

[FunkMiller]

My thing is...if you think a hero is incredibly powerful...wouldn’t the solution be to put him or her up against a villain who’s equally or more powerful?

Only if you regard physical strength as being a measure of power. And if that we’re true, Joker wouldn’t be much opposition to Batman, would he?

It’s about good writing. That’s the problem Superman has had. He hasn’t had good writing in movies.

 

[GreenKToo]

For me, I think it's a combination of things.
Directors,
WB not wanting to stay true to the source,
Scribes.
We got flashes of the superman we ( most of us anyway ) wanted in past films, the plane save in SR, first flight in MoS, but they ( the directors ) lose it after that.

Perhaps the next superman film, ( god knows when ) should have Clark working in broadcast news, and being the hip, but nerdy guy we love.
Give him equal time as superman. Show him being amazed at simple things since he is from small town America, etc.

I'll be honest, I have little faith we will ever get what we want even if we got a Abrams or Spielberg directing, wb wouldn't be able to stop themselves from interfering.

 

[terry78]

His rogues gallery has more cerebral villains like Brainiac and what not yet they keep going back to Luthor. Which is the bread and butter, I get that. But Metallo, Solomon Grundy, whatever....use them as muslce for a more menacing opposition.

 

[STARMAN]

The scripts have been generally poor, including those that were never made. Too often they've hired screenwriters uncomfortable with the material in the first place. For them it's a chore.

 

[Boy Scout]

Only if you regard physical strength as being a measure of power.

It is a measure of power. Not the only one, but an important one. You can make a great Superman movie that doesn’t require him to throw a punch, but that would be a risky move.

It’s about good writing. That’s the problem Superman has had. He hasn’t had good writing in movies.

I agree, but I feel like that goes without saying.

 

[MaceB]

I'll be honest, I have little faith we will ever get what we want even if we got a Abrams or Spielberg directing, wb wouldn't be able to stop themselves from interfering.

Exactly. WB is the problem. They don't get the character. They don't seem to get the genre, period.

 

[2kt09]

Exactly. WB is the problem. They don't get the character. They don't seem to get the genre, period.

What is there even to get with the genre?

 

[STARMAN]

WB pretty much let Singer and Snyder make the films they wanted to make in Superman Returns and Man of Steel. They would let Spielberg or Abrams do what they desire.

 

[flickchick85]

WB would not interfere with Spielberg or Abrams. To paraphrase TDKR, they're just too big. Snyder and Ayer never had their kind of clout or anything close to it. Also, WB are the same studio that made Superman '78, Wonder Woman and TDKT. They get the genre just fine. But considering the people responsible for Superman are long gone at the studio, maybe it would be reasonable to say the current people in charge don't get the character's appeal.

 

[MaceB]

What is there even to get with the genre?

Well, I don't think WB appreciates that comic book movies can be many things. The superhero genre isn't even really a genre I guess. It's more like a mode.. it's above genre. Because there can be Noir Detective superhero films, cop superhero films, western superhero films, etc. The thing that TDK did so well is that it was a legit, good police drama with superhero elements. Nolan focused on making the writing and the plot work. He didn't approach it with this 'by the numbers' mentality that WB does. "Oh this is a Batman movie - there's gotta be a big superhero fight at the end, and where's the love interest, and can we give the character multiple suits to sell more toys?" Now, a Superhero movie can do all those things, but it's how you do it. WB seems to think that it doesn't matter - just throw all the ingredients in the pot, let them simmer for 2 hours, and boom - box office success.

 

[MaceB]

WB pretty much let Singer and Snyder make the films they wanted to make in Superman Returns and Man of Steel. They would let Spielberg or Abrams do what they desire.

I disagree. I don't think that Snyder would have hired Affleck, nor shoehorned in Doomsday, nor made a vs. movie against Batman and Superman. Those were all box office motivated choices, not narrative ones. I can't prove it, but that's what makes the most sense.

Justice League is worse. That movie reads, from top to bottom, as an executive controlled movie.

 

[FunkMiller]

What is there even to get with the genre?

Well, firstly not being embarrassed about who your characters are would be a good step.

Every single one of WB’s worst moves have been about trying to change their superheroes from the comic book source. Trying to ‘grow them up’ or ‘make them cooler’. That’s why Snyder’s characterisations were so awful. Singer’s too for that matter. And Campbell’s. And Ayer’s.

 

[STARMAN]

I disagree. I don't think that Snyder would have hired Affleck, nor shoehorned in Doomsday, nor made a vs. movie against Batman and Superman. Those were all box office motivated choices, not narrative ones. I can't prove it, but that's what makes the most sense.

Justice League is worse. That movie reads, from top to bottom, as an executive controlled movie.

I said, Man of Steel. They lost faith in him after that. But Man of Steel was his.

 

[MaceB]

And Man of Steel was basically a good movie. Yeah, they gave him much more creative control in MOS, agreed. If they just had not gotten so spooked and let him make a sequel, we may not even have this topic to discuss right now. They messed up because they interfered. They don't seem to understand what fans want with the character.

The fact that Spielberg or Abrams would demand so much control over a franchise with a less than stellar box office record, is probably why they'll never hire them. They're afraid to give up control with Superman.

 

[misslane38]

My thing is...if you think a hero is incredibly powerful...wouldn’t the solution be to put him or her up against a villain who’s equally or more powerful?

No, the solution is to put Superman in a situation that powers alone cannot fix. Superman's greatest superpower should always be his essential goodness and his ability to inspire people, so the key to saving the day must always rest on either inspiring good people to make a difference or inspiring bad guys to be better. The central conflict in a Superman story should be the degree to which he's effective in gaining trust and inspiring good and bad people to do the right thing. Superman should inspire by virtue of his actions and example above all else. Cheesy speeches and cliche platitudes are ineffective, in my opinion.

 

[STARMAN]

Now I grant you having Chris Nolan on MOS to act as a buffer between Snyder and the studio helps. But he got everything he wanted there.