Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[Kahran Ramsus]

As a character, he is way more complex than he's given credit for. There's lies your problem, everyone thinks making a Superman film is 'easy'. It's not, there are layers of light & dark and people find it hard to traverse both finite ends so end up making grey or end up making polarising versions of either end, Superman IV or Batman v Superman.

It isn't easy. No movie is easy. And Superman is probably more difficult than many other heroes. But he isn't anywhere near as difficult to get right as WB makes him out to be. That's what people mean. They are speaking in relative terms.

 

[writer0327]

Because they are trying too hard to make something groundbreaking instead of making a nice, simple action film. Everyone wants to be an "auteur" instead of telling a straightforward story with good characters.

 

[Flint Marko]

I have no reason to think most agree he's relatively difficult to adapt. (Edit: see my discussion with Superchan, not my first such) The thread here asks a direct question and no one before me seemed to even acknowledge that he's relatively difficult, much less comment on why that is.

We'll agree to disagree there. I think most (re: most, not all) people I've talked with about this are generally in agreement of how relatively difficult it is to make Superman both relatable and vulnerable. At the very least, I think Mandon's original claim that "everyone thinks making a Superman film is easy" is pretty baseless.

And it's not just that Cap and Thor aren't one to one. Having the moral strength of Cap and the physical might of Thor negates the kinds of storylines that the other receives, necessitating a new solution, or at least a very smart hybrid. Doable, yeah, but... man... I don't fault WB for not figuring that out, because very few movies in history have ever done it.

WB handed the character over to Zack Snyder. I definitely fault them for that

It isn't easy. No movie is easy. And Superman is probably more difficult than many other heroes. But he isn't anywhere near as difficult to get right as WB makes him out to be. That's what people mean. They are speaking in relative terms.

 

[DrCosmic]

The conflict in Superman I is to what degree he should interfere in the lives of human beings or not as portrayed in the wishes of Jonathan and Jor-El (he ultimately sides with Jonathan).

Jonathan: "Then when a man gets older and he thinks very differently. And things get very clear. And there's one thing I do know, Son, and that is you are here for a reason."

Jor-El: "You cannot serve humanity 28 hours a day. As it is, it won't happen. Your help will be called for endlessly. Even for those tasks that human beings can solve themselves . . . Do not punish yourself with your feelings of vanity. Simply learn to control them. It is an affliction common to all, even on Krypton. Our destruction could have been avoided but for the vanity of some..."

How does that conflict play out, outside of him turning back time? He seems to confidently and resolutely be involved in the lives of people to the precisely correct amount. He doesn't ever seem to be in danger of punishing himself for feelings of vanity, unless I misunderstand the use of vanity here and Lois Lane's death qualifies. I don't see how this conflict can drive the film if it only a single scene comes from it. I think misunderstanding of how central this conflict is to the film is a huge part of why Superman Returns' conflict was so vapid.

We'll agree to disagree there. I think most (re: most, not all) people I've talked with about this are generally in agreement of how relatively difficult it is to make Superman both relatable and vulnerable. At the very least, I think Mandon's original claim that "everyone thinks making a Superman film is easy" is pretty baseless.

WB handed the character over to Zack Snyder. I definitely fault them for that

Certainly a poor decision.

I think I may have overstated my point. In the larger conversation with the general audience, yes, most people I discuss this with say that a good superman movie is too hard to be done, or that it has been done and that MoS is the ultimate Superman movie. These people, generally speaking, are not fans of the classic Superman, and may actively dislike him. When I'm on threads with Superman fans, threads like this, I find often seem to say it is easy are the Superman fans, whose responses to questions about difficulty are "just do this" or "just do that" or some other implication of triviality, and general disinterest in specifying what the challenges are. Only once Cap proved popular did that particular challenge in making a Superman film become openly acknowledged in these conversations, and even still, when mentioned, he is held up as not just an applicable case, but proof of ease.

Now, yes, saying "everyone" in regards to this subset of the larger community is at the very least misleading, but if we're talking about the kinds of people who respond to this thread title, we're a pretty consistent bunch in not addressing this thread title, and instead shifting to the more vindicatory question of: "what did WB do wrong?"

 

[Galactus123]

Superman and Superman 2 are great in my opinion. Also Superman Returns is not as bad as people say.

 

[The Batman]

I mean...let's say Superman does in fact have no real internal conflict for most of STM. To that I say, and with no offense...so what? Are we going to pretend that Superman is the only one who has that "problem"? Because he's not.

Its arguable that Iron Man in "Iron Man" and James Bond in "Goldfinger" both lack an internal conflict for most of their respective films. Both of those films are still considered great, and both Tony Stark and James Bond are still beloved film characters.

 

[DrCosmic]

I mean...let's say Superman does in fact have no real internal conflict for most of STM. To that I say, and with no offense...so what? Are we going to pretend that Superman is the only one who has that "problem"? Because he's not.

Its arguable that Iron Man in "Iron Man" and James Bond in "Goldfinger" both lack an internal conflict for most of their respective films. Both of those films are still considered great, and both Tony Stark and James Bond are still beloved film characters.

I also don't care if Superman has any internal conflict.

My question is "What is the conflict in STM?" It is not "What is Superman's internal conflict in STM?" I do not assume Superman has conflict or that it is internal. I care about this basic question because my understanding is that conflict is at the heart of good story. IF (and only IF) STM proves that false, I'd like to explore that. If there is conflict there, I'd like to discuss what that is, as I believe that would answer the question: "why is making a good movie so hard?"

Edit: It also might be cool to discuss other characters who have no internal conflict and why they can be as appealing as those who do, and when they fail to be as compelling.

Superman and Superman 2 are great in my opinion. Also Superman Returns is not as bad as people say.

They're great in my opinion, and yes, Superman Returns is as often credited for unmet expectations as the actual failures of the film.

 

[The Batman]

My question is "What is the conflict in STM?"

Well, in that case, its pretty simple. It's Superman vs the falling helicopter. Or the burglar climbing up the skyscraper. Or the thieves on the boat. Or the tree that kidnapped a little girl's kitten. Or the freak occurrences that cause helicopters, and the reporters they carry, to fall off buildings, or cause Air Force One to nearly crash. And ultimately, Lex Luthor, two nukes, earthquakes, and human mortality. STM is made up of many conflicts, not just one overriding one.

 

[Fincher]

Or is it a boring movie where nothing is at stake for most of it?

This is the answer for me; clearly, a lot of other people don't agree. However, I wouldn't take it as a given that you can do the same thing in a modern movie and get a hit out of it. Superman needs to be challenged as a character. At the same time, I think people (or people around here, anyway) have rejected the idea of Superman being conflicted about his place in the world, or brooding in any sort of way, and at any rate they can't go there after Man of Steel and BvS. So Superman needs to be optimistic and altruistic and determined and a shining beacon and an inspiration for everyone. So there needs to be some sort of external challenge, something he can't just power his way through.

It could be that Superman has to prove to society that he's good, except that they just went there. It could be that Lois is sick and could die and he needs to be strong for her, but after BvS being considered dour they probably don't want to go there, either. It could be a romcom where Superman can handle his enemies, but can he win Lois' heart? I'd tend to say, though, that he should face a serious physical threat, something he needs to struggle against and/or outsmart (but I guess without too much collateral damage).

 

[TheComicbookKid]

In modern filmmaking, I think it's the fact blockbusters are built around set pieces and Superman doesn't automatically fall into set pieces.

Batman is defined by his gadgets so you know his set pieces will feature those.
Star Wars (featuring Jedi) won't have a movie where a lightsaber isn't used.

Superman doesn't have those limitations so people go off the rails to try and make it more complicated than it needs to be. So the "Superman is overpowered" or "why didn't he use this or know this" creeps into the story.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

How does that conflict play out, outside of him turning back time? He seems to confidently and resolutely be involved in the lives of people to the precisely correct amount.

Turning back time is the payoff. It is the climax of the film and results in Superman making a choice to openly defy Jor-El in order to save Lois. We aren't meant to think that he made the wrong choice. While that was originally the ending to the second film, the final cut of the first film is leading up that moment. The warning "it is forbidden for you to interfere with human history" is repeated throughout the film leading up that final choice to turn back time.

He doesn't ever seem to be in danger of punishing himself for feelings of vanity, unless I misunderstand the use of vanity here and Lois Lane's death qualifies. I don't see how this conflict can drive the film if it only a single scene comes from it. I think misunderstanding of how central this conflict is to the film is a huge part of why Superman Returns' conflict was so vapid.

Clark is acting out of his own selfish desire to help people.

Jor-El: "You enjoyed it."
Clark: "I don't know what to say, Father. I am afraid just got carried away."
Jor-El: "I anticipated this, my son."
Clark: "You couldn't have. You couldn't have imagined..."
Jor-El: "How good it felt?"

He IS helping people, but he's doing it for the wrong reasons and Jor-El knows it. Also, Jor-El's desire, as explained earlier in the film, is for Superman to be an inspiration for humanity to do good as opposed to causing direct interference in human affairs. He also warns Clark about the limits of his abilities both in terms of what he can physically do and what is good for other people. Jor-El is firmly of the "Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime" philosophy. Hence "vanity." It does come back to haunt Superman later when he, assuming he is invincible, arrogantly marches right into Luthor's lair (which is exactly what Luthor wants), and as a result nearly gets himself killed. Luthor also puts him into the impossible situation of trying to stop two nuclear rockets heading in two different directions at the same time, which is beyond the limits of his normal abilities. So he fails, one nuke hits California, and that's when he makes the big decision to turn back time.

That's his internal conflict. He doesn't really get over it until the second film when he puts his desire to be with Lois over his duty as Superman, and as a result Earth gets conquered by Zod. This is where the Donnor Cut is superior to the Lester Cut. By cutting Jor-El out of SM2, they ripped out the heart of the film.

 

[writer0327]

Superman needs a situation he cannot punch his way out of, where he's forced to use his Kryptonian intellect to save the day. Brainiac is the perfect villain for that.

Maybe writers are too beholden to Lex Luthor as a villain. Get away from Lex and let's get to aliens and supercomputers. Now we're talking.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Superman needs a situation he cannot punch his way out of, where he's forced to use his Kryptonian intellect to save the day. Brainiac is the perfect villain for that.

Maybe writers are too beholden to Lex Luthor as a villain. Get away from Lex and let's get to aliens and supercomputers. Now we're talking.

I liked that in SM2. He couldn't beat the trio in a fight so he had to resort to tricking them.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I honestly think the answer is semi-complicated.

With Superman, he's a subversion of a power-fantasy, rather than a straightforward interpretation. He's stronger than any human being, but his true strength doesn't lie in his ability to punch things hard, but in his character.

With American action oriented cinema, there's pretty much always been this inner urge to see the hero strong-arm the villain with the bulk of the narrative supporting as connective motivation toward that payoff.

With Superman, that just doesn't really work as well because the core of the character isn't that he embraces violence, but uses it when absolutely necessary.

As much as I like the new WW movie, Diana is shown to have a thirst for dominance and might.

It's a bit "dodgy" for how I view WW, but it absolutely doesn't work for Superman.


The question becomes less "How can I show Superman kicking everybody's butt?" and more of "How can I show emotional complexity and the desire for nonviolence?"

So then the dichotomy becomes "risk a boring movie" or "make the wrong Superman movie."

If I'm an executive who just wants to see money roll in, I don't think it's really a hard choice-unfortunately.


Again, I'm not saying that Superman movies shouldn't have action, merely that the tone should be informed by the peaceful ideals that Clark was raised upon.

Then of course you have the vague complaints that "Superman is overpowered/dated/boring.." but honestly, I think that if you did Superman justice, you would still have a significant amount of those complaints.

The difference is there would be now a modern context in which Superman would be positively redefined for a new generation.


Honestly, with Brainiac you could have weird Matrixy vibes...but I'd actually look forward to something like a more grounded All Star Superman. If only for the "stronger" moment with Regan.

And nobody should make any Superman movie until The Iron Giant is memorized

 

[STARMAN]

You can have an external conflict and provide drama and entertainment particular in the adventure genre. You can also have scenes of internal conflict without spending the entire movie conflicted.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

^ I honestly think the answer is semi-complicated.

With Superman, he's a subversion of a power-fantasy, rather than a straightforward interpretation. He's stronger than any human being, but his true strength doesn't lie in his ability to punch things hard, but in his character.

With American action oriented cinema, there's pretty much always been this inner urge to see the hero strong-arm the villain with the bulk of the narrative supporting as connective motivation toward that payoff.

With Superman, that just doesn't really work as well because the core of the character isn't that he embraces violence, but uses it when absolutely necessary.

As much as I like the new WW movie, Diana is shown to have a thirst for dominance and might.

It's a bit "dodgy" for how I view WW, but it absolutely doesn't work for Superman.


The question becomes less "How can I show Superman kicking everybody's butt?" and more of how can I show emotional complexity and the desire for nonviolence?

So then the dichotomy becomes "risk a boring movie" or "make the wrong Superman movie."

If I'm an executive who just wants to see money roll in, I don't think it's really a hard choice-unfortunately.


Again, I'm not saying that Superman movies shouldn't have action, merely that the tone should be informed by the peaceful ideals that Clark was raised upon.

Yeah, I think there's something in that. Technology has allowed the level of action in superhero movies to move on over the years and audience expectation has moved along with it. I think someone mentioned earlier that you're not going to please everyone. And you're not. People expect their set pieces. Seeing a man of peace trying to hold true to his ideals for the bulk of the movie with an unavoidable showdown at the end may well be an ideal Superman movie for some, but some GAs may feel shortchanged by that.

 

[DrCosmic]

Well, in that case, its pretty simple. It's Superman vs the falling helicopter. Or the burglar climbing up the skyscraper. Or the thieves on the boat. Or the tree that kidnapped a little girl's kitten. Or the freak occurrences that cause helicopters, and the reporters they carry, to fall off buildings, or cause Air Force One to nearly crash. And ultimately, Lex Luthor, two nukes, earthquakes, and human mortality. STM is made up of many conflicts, not just one overriding one.

Hmmm... I'm not quite convinced that Superman vs a tree is a conflict, and I'm pretty sure it's not one that's meaningful or impactful. The scene is impactful, sure, but not because Superman overcomes the tree, is it? I think if we are looking for some physical conflict we naturally assume whatever is causing a physical problem is what he's dealing with, but the movie shows that these physical challenges are almost entirely trivial.

But even still, are these conflicts connected at all? If not, why does STM work with a bunch of disconnected conflicts, while other movies with a bunch of disconnected conflicts just seem random and pointless?

This is the answer for me; clearly, a lot of other people don't agree. However, I wouldn't take it as a given that you can do the same thing in a modern movie and get a hit out of it. Superman needs to be challenged as a character. At the same time, I think people (or people around here, anyway) have rejected the idea of Superman being conflicted about his place in the world, or brooding in any sort of way, and at any rate they can't go there after Man of Steel and BvS. So Superman needs to be optimistic and altruistic and determined and a shining beacon and an inspiration for everyone. So there needs to be some sort of external challenge, something he can't just power his way through.

It could be that Superman has to prove to society that he's good, except that they just went there. It could be that Lois is sick and could die and he needs to be strong for her, but after BvS being considered dour they probably don't want to go there, either. It could be a romcom where Superman can handle his enemies, but can he win Lois' heart? I'd tend to say, though, that he should face a serious physical threat, something he needs to struggle against and/or outsmart (but I guess without too much collateral damage).

I could sure go for a Superman-Lois romcom! Man...

But I see what you're saying. There's a call for a really bright character, but some darkness is necessary for a story. I don't know that people are so fed up with him being simply conflicted. Justice League's Superman seemed to be well received, despite having lots of conflict on his road to the climax.

In modern filmmaking, I think it's the fact blockbusters are built around set pieces and Superman doesn't automatically fall into set pieces.

That's a good point. What does Superman fall into then, if not set pieces?

Turning back time is the payoff. It is the climax of the film and results in Superman making a choice to openly defy Jor-El in order to save Lois. We aren't meant to think that he made the wrong choice. While that was originally the ending to the second film, the final cut of the first film is leading up that moment. The warning "it is forbidden for you to interfere with human history" is repeated throughout the film leading up that final choice to turn back time.

I see how the turning back time pays off Jor-El's warning in the beginning... but that's not something that's built on throughout the film.

Clark is acting out of his own selfish desire to help people.

Jor-El: "You enjoyed it."
Clark: "I don't know what to say, Father. I am afraid just got carried away."
Jor-El: "I anticipated this, my son."
Clark: "You couldn't have. You couldn't have imagined..."
Jor-El: "How good it felt?"

He IS helping people, but he's doing it for the wrong reasons and Jor-El knows it. Also, Jor-El's desire, as explained earlier in the film, is for Superman to be an inspiration for humanity to do good as opposed to causing direct interference in human affairs. He also warns Clark about the limits of his abilities both in terms of what he can physically do and what is good for other people. Jor-El is firmly of the "Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime" philosophy. Hence "vanity." It does come back to haunt Superman later when he, assuming he is invincible, arrogantly marches right into Luthor's lair (which is exactly what Luthor wants), and as a result nearly gets himself killed. Luthor also puts him into the impossible situation of trying to stop two nuclear rockets heading in two different directions at the same time, which is beyond the limits of his normal abilities. So he fails, one nuke hits California, and that's when he makes the big decision to turn back time.

That's his internal conflict. He doesn't really get over it until the second film when he puts his desire to be with Lois over his duty as Superman, and as a result Earth gets conquered by Zod. This is where the Donnor Cut is superior to the Lester Cut. By cutting Jor-El out of SM2, they ripped out the heart of the film.

So, I had no idea this scene or this 3 hour cut existed. I assumed when you pulled from it before it was in Jor-El's training and I missed it. My whole investigation is based on the hunch that the original 2 hour version works and is widely appreciated despite it not having Superman struggling with doing the right thing or with any physical obstacle.

The idea that he does have this deep internal conflict in the subtext and in the extended cut is interesting. It also sort of gives a historical context to DCEU's "this is the real/good cut" shenanigans.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The DVD version of the film contains that scene in an added 8 minutes from the Theatrical Version. I'm not even sure if there was an official US DVD/Blu-Ray release of the original 1978 cut. Every version I've seen on home media since the VHS has that scene in it. So I guess WB considers it to be the definitive version of the film.

 

[Superchan]

.

I don't remember Superman II well at all, but Superman '78 doesn't feature that conflict, iirc. Superman is quite comfortable being the last of his kind, and has spent ~12 years being tutored by his space dad and coming to grips with heritage. He is a shining beacon of likability from then on and that's, like 15 minutes into the movie. There is conflict in the film, but it's not Superman's internal conflict. So what is it?

During the smallville segment of the movie Clark was quite conflicted about the extent with which he should use his powers, not to mention that he wasn't all too happy about being an 'odd ball' as Brad put it and wanted to use football to be liked and popular, but then he went to the fortress and after 12 years he understood that 'he's there for a reason and it's not to score touch downs'. You're right that eliminated the conflict that he had but it also made perfect sense and the audience were on board.

When you say 'the conflict I'm so fond of' I hope you don't think that I'm advocating a specific type of conflict for Superman, or that the type I'd prefer is what we're given by creators who dislike the traditional Superman, far from it. I only suggest that meaningful conflict is the foundation of the appeal of any good film.

I understood what were trying to say and while I acknowledge that conflict is important in the hero's journey I would argue that for superman in particular it's the character's charm and charisma that makes him unique and it is the foundation for superman's appeal. Look at Chris Reeve's superman in STM, like I said before his 12yrs at the fortress removed most of the conflict but that didn't matter because Superman's charm/charisma is what carried the movie in the 3rd act not conflict.

Certainly WB could, in theory, overcome the challenges of what makes Superman so hard, but I find it odd that in all this talk about how easy it is for WB to overcome those challenges, we never say what those challenges are or even acknowledge that there are challenges unique to Superman

.

Again speaking only for myself I never said that superman wasn't challenging but I also tried to highlight the fact that WB haven't shown many signs of learning from past mistakes regarding the character so I say they retain the lion's share of the blame.

Examples of great writers doing their best work at the height of their careers simply is not evidence that any good writer can do the same, much less that they can do it easily.

I never said ANY good writer can do it, but I believe that MOST good writers who are passionate about the character could.

Your examples are great for explaining what makes Superman so hard to write, and how only the best doing their best and adding things to the traditional Superman trappings can introduce good conflict.

Like Nic Cage said "with superman you have to hit the bulls eye" and you do because he's freaking superman but only the writers who couldn't write superman well complained about him being too hard to write. Morrison, Moore, Wolfeman, Pak, Millar, Jurgens, Stern and many more didn't make such a statement (atleast not ones that I'm aware of).
I don't think superman is easy to write at all but I don't think he's the 'white whale' as Tom King recently put it.
And btw I have many more examples of great superman stories that alot of readers aren't aware of, I can provide you with a list if you're interested in checking these stories out sometime.

By the way, 'can Superman hold his breath' is not a meaningful conflict if we have no reason to suspect the answer will be "no" or fear for his life if the answer somehow is "no."

With superheroes in general a truly meaningful conflict is hard to attain because you know what what ever conflict the hero has will be resolved at the end and so it comes down to how a writer sets it up. In action#7 annual the writer challenged the convention that superman can automatically go to space because 'he's superman' and instead introduced conflict through careful and thorough monologues provided by superman himself. If you ever do manage to read the issue you'll understand.

Again, I defer on Superman II, I haven't seen that as an adult. But on Superman I, Superman comes of age in the first fifteen minutes, and is completely settled in who he is and how he's going to go about things. He's entirely mature. The conflict you mention happens in the last fifteen minutes, when he turns his back on Jor-El's teachings, temporarily. So what's the conflict between those points, when Superman emerges from the Fortress and when Lois dies? Or is it a boring movie where nothing is at stake for most of it?

Actually the smallville/FOS part is more than 30 mins long and it makes up the entire 2nd act of the movie so it's not a flick of the finger as you're suggesting and again I will refer to the 12 yrs at the FOS as a potent explanation of why superman emerges as a fully formed hero who goes about his business with as little moping as possible.

I'm not saying they aren't infinite, but I'm pointing out reasons why they are much, much harder.

Like I said, superman is hard to write but not as hard as some creators would like us to think

When directors have tried too, they get slaughtered for it, (Man of Steel) and people want 'happy clappers' Superman, give them that and they moan too, (Returns), basically, you can't please an audience when it comes to this character, hence why he's so hard to 'get right'.

SR was not a 'happy clappers' superman, not by a long shot. That movie was about as somber as Snyder's garbage and just because it borrows certain elements from the Donner films doesn't mean it's anything like those films

Jor-El: "You cannot serve humanity 28 hours a day. As it is, it won't happen. Your help will be called for endlessly. Even for those tasks that human beings can solve themselves . . . Do not punish yourself with your feelings of vanity. Simply learn to control them. It is an affliction common to all, even on Krypton. Our destruction could have been avoided but for the vanity of some..."

Kahran thanks for putting up that quote because that scene was by far my favorite of the whole movie and it was sadly cut because of Brando's pay by the minute contract.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

That's a good point. What does Superman fall into then, if not set pieces?

It's not so much that it's not set pieces as it is a Superman movie wouldn't need to be build around them.

You can't have a Batman movie without Batman. The physical image of the Batman is what strikes fear into his enemies. A whole movie about Bruce in a black suit wouldn't work.

A whole movie about Clark just traveling around helping people in poor countries like 70s Bruce Banner would still be a Superman movie. Cause people recognize him as Superman by his feats of strength.

But blockbusters today are built around "at page 30 we see the costume"" We get the fortress and Krypton on page 120" etc.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do think Superman is harder to adapt than most heroes. There's balancing hope and darkness (his Kryptonian backstory). Also, you actually need a good writer to give him a challenge that doesn't involve kryptonite.

That said, I still think the biggest problem is just the fact that the creative teams behind the recent movies either don't like the character or understand the character.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Kahran thanks for putting up that quote because that scene was by far my favorite of the whole movie and it was sadly cut because of Brando's pay by the minute contract.

You're welcome. Donnor and Mankiewicz knew it, which is why they stood up to the Salkinds on SM2 on behalf of Brando even though it cost them their jobs.

And Brando was totally justified in demanding more money after the Salkinds lied to him about filming for one film while planning to split up the footage among two so they could get out of giving him two paychecks. I know Brando was difficult to deal with, but that's fraud. Want to know why making a Superman movie is so hard? Because of producers like that.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I really think it might be impossible to top STM. I really think that it and The Dark Knight are by far the best that DC ever churned out. Next level stuff.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I really think S:TM is the most mythical of the superhero movies-even with the grand-scale magic of Thor and Wonder Woman.

But I think its dramatic potential can be topped simply because there's more material than there was but also because the film genre has somewhat evolved.

The original movies will still remain classics, though.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I think the WW/STM comparisons are a exaggerations. WW is a good movie, but it's not on the same level as STM. Gal Gadot is a great Wonder Woman, but Christopher Reeve was BORN to play Superman. Not trying to be negative because I enjoy both, just being honest.