Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[spider-neil]

Thor also has the benefit of being able to traipse across the universe and fight immensely powerful enemies.

What's stopping Superman doing that?

 

[spider-neil]

4. He wants to be a good person. That's all there is to it. This is encapsulated in MoS in the Oil Rig Scene. He's there, there are people in danger and he has the power to help them. He casts off his current identity and saves the rig workers.

The first rule of screenwriting, 'show don't tell'.
They do not show often enough and consistently enough what motivates Superman, they just don't.

Ask a member of the general audience what motivates Spider-Man and then ask the same person what motivates Superman. I'll bet anyone a member of the general audience couldn't tell you what motivates movie Superman.

 

[spider-neil]

Delete

 

[unholyrevenger]

What's stopping Superman doing that?

I'll re post the final sentence of that post

Superman can do that but it ends up becoming "If Superman loves earth so much why is he gallivanting across the universe fixing every one else's problems"

The first rule of screenwriting, 'show don't tell'.
They do not show often enough and consistently enough what motivates Superman, they just don't.

Ask a member of the general audience what motivates Spider-Man and then ask the same person what motivates Superman. I'll bet anyone a member of the general audience couldn't tell you what motivates movie Superman.

Snyder shows it every time Clark stops what he's doing and goes and saves some one as Superman. The problem is the audience doesn't want it shown to them they want it told to them through a "With Great power, comes great responsibility" scene.

 

[Flint Marko]

The problem is the audience doesn't want it shown to them they want it told to them through a "With Great power, comes great responsibility" scene.

Of course the audience wants it shown to them, but.... yeah, a "great power, great responsibility" scene would likely be a step in the right direction.

The problem is that we never get inside Superman's head to find out what makes him tick. We see him constantly choose to do good things but when it comes to figuring out why? It's all guesswork. There's no real answer. He rarely speaks, instead opting to have people talk at him about what he is and what he should be, while always making the same choice over and over and over: save the day while looking sad/conflicted.

That's just not interesting. It's long been noted by both detractors and defenders that the film-makers are more interested in writing Superman as an icon/symbol than as a real flesh-and-blood character, and that's ultimately why he hasn't connected with audiences.

So yes, you're right to some extent about wanting a "great power/responsibility" scene. People just want to get to know him and hear him speak, period. I think that's understandable.

 

[spider-neil]

Of course the audience wants it shown to them, but.... yeah, a "great power, great responsibility" scene would likely be a step in the right direction.

The problem is that we never get inside Superman's head to find out what makes him tick. We see him constantly choose to do good things but when it comes to figuring out why? It's all guesswork. There's no real answer. He rarely speaks, instead opting to have people talk at him about what he is and what he should be, while always making the same choice over and over and over: save the day while looking sad/conflicted.

That's just not interesting. It's long been noted by both detractors and defenders that the film-makers are more interested in writing Superman as an icon/symbol than as a real flesh-and-blood character, and that's ultimately why he hasn't connected with audiences.

So yes, you're right to some extent about wanting a "great power/responsibility" scene. People just want to get to know him and hear him speak, period. I think that's understandable.

He flies off in BvS when the going gets tough and then comes back when the fighting starts because, reasons. WHY are you leaving? WHY have you come back? You KNEW why Spider-Man gives up being Spider-Man in SM2 and you KNEW why he returned. None of us is a mind reader but the majority of the time we knew what was going through Spider-Man's head. We need that clarity with Superman and we've never got it in live action. Again, how can you get behind a character you don't understand?

 

[DrCosmic]

Snyder's take isn't that Superman is irrelevant. His take is that Superman feels that he's irrelevant and it isn't until his "death" and it's effect on earth that it's apparent that Superman matters.

So once again the GA doesn't want a Superman movie where Superman struggles to be Superman, they want a 200 million dollar Hallmark movie

I get that's your reading of Superman's feelings, but for many in the audience, Superman's inability to accomplish anything in life, as explicitly shown in the film is their takeaway, not what Superman's feelings might have been. This is indeed contradicted by the end of the film, where his death is suddenly effectual, but for many that makes the movie nonsensical, and even if it didn't, succeeding at being Superman by stopping being Superman in death is not succeeding spectacularly.

There is a world of difference between "you're great when you're dead" and a Hallmark movie, and Superman fans have enjoyed the character playing in that wide space for decades... at least in the comics.

The argument that Superman is too powerful breaks down if the people who make the movies actually have the balls to use a villain who isn't Lex Luthor or General Zod. Brainiac, Mongol, Darkseid, Bizarro, Metallo, Doomsday (proper). Allof these can pose an obvious physical threat to Superman. They just haven't been used because people are scared to use them, because they're too 'comic-booky', and probably because they're too expensive.

But, the 'Superman' is too powerful argument really holds no water if you have the right villain, the right story and the right stakes.

And Superman's supporting cast is neither better nor worse than any other comic character. They just need to be written well.

None of the arguments against Superman on the big screen hold water when you disregard all of the versions in live action we've already seen.

The Superman is too powerful argument doesn't break down because the character is perceived as stronger than his foes from the get go. He has feats that dwarf theirs in the hearts and minds of the viewer, if not the actual continuity. As such, they need to show up and dwarf his feats, because if he just jobs to them for a bit, it looks like bad writing or him not trying. That chaos to set up his physical threats is expensive, not just in CGI but in storytelling skill and time. That's one reason why it's harder. This is why when people aren't scared to use they usually fail. Sure it's possible, if you get everything just right, but the thing is, with other heroes, you don't have to get *everything* just right to have a really interesting story. With Superman, you kinda do.

The other thing with Superman's supporting cast is that they are NOT as good as many other heroes'. The first problem with his supporting cast is that they are mostly in the same very limited industry, and beyond that, they are in an outdated industry, and beyond that the trappings of their work are what make them relevant. Outside of the Daily Planet and his mom house, what life does Clark Kent have? And tying in with the overall 'distance' between the life of the average person and Clark Kent, how familiar are we with the news world? How popular are shows about newspaper people and newscasters? What subjects does an actual newsperson wrestle with and can we tell those stories without giving Clark Kent a huge liberal or conservative bias, alienating half of his fans?


So that's why the criticisms have merit, even though they can be addressed, they do have to be addressed, and done so better than many other heroes.

What's stopping Superman doing that?

Because that's a different story. Same thing with Batman, but people give him a pass because 'bullets,' this is a character whose abilities have outgrown their premise. With Batman's resources and connections, I could have Gotham 90% clean in a matter of months. Batman though wants to beat people up on rooftops. *shrug*


People have done it though, but that runs into the problem with Superman's supporting cast that you're referring to. Adapting them for space is... hard. Especially if you take away all the cosmic level stuff he was dealing with on a daily basis from back when he was popular.

I think about how Supergirl handled this same problem on her TV show. They had the 'news' cast, and they also had the 'DEO' cast that actually tied into events, and slowly the news cast made its way over to the DEO cast with a few newspeople remaining for C-plots.

I think, more than powers or power level or any other of the surface level smoke and mirrors - because after all, the powers are all for metaphor anyway - I think it's Superman's supporting cast that needs to be brought into the modern day. That's the part that's remained stagnant, and honestly the closest we got to Lois Lane have a solid unique personality is Smallville (unless you count TAS).

 

[Herofan]

Outside of the Daily Planet and his mom house, what life does Clark Kent have? And tying in with the overall 'distance' between the life of the average person and Clark Kent, how familiar are we with the news world? How popular are shows about newspaper people and newscasters? What subjects does an actual newsperson wrestle with and can we tell those stories without giving Clark Kent a huge liberal or conservative bias, alienating half of his fans?

Hmm fair points, even in some pretty-good adaptations (like TAS) the focus was much more on Superman and the plots than Clark and relationships (DC characters tend to be relatively static and so work better in television). And most writers' idea of journalism-drama does seem to be to have the protagonist complain to the audience, that journalism isn't as respected as it used to be and/or that the country as a whole has gone downhill.

Edit: You could expand the type of supporting characters and interactions by, as TAS did, some more focus on police characters.

 

[spider-neil]

Put it this way, I could watch an entire movie with Nakia, Shuri and Okoye and not have Black Panther show up. That is how well rounded that supporting cast is. Can you say the same thing about Superman's supporting. You could get away with a dull supporting cast if the main hero (Superman) were interesting but Superman mopes around bemoaning the fact he has fantastic power. Oh boo hoo.

If you can fix Thor (Ragnorock) and you can fix Captain America (Winter Solider) then you can fix Superman. You just need the right director and writers and I'm sorry to say you also need a different Superman.

 

[lordofthenerds]

WB seems to be of the mindset that "Superman is from a different era, and thus needs to be reworked for a contemporary audience". Unfortunately, reworking characters for the elusive contemporary audience often results in a character resembling Batman.

 

[DrCosmic]

WB seems to be of the mindset that "Superman is from a different era, and thus needs to be reworked for a contemporary audience". Unfortunately, reworking characters for the elusive contemporary audience often results in a character resembling Batman.

Put it this way, I could watch an entire movie with Nakia, Shuri and Okoye and not have Black Panther show up. That is how well rounded that supporting cast is. Can you say the same thing about Superman's supporting. You could get away with a dull supporting cast if the main hero (Superman) were interesting but Superman mopes around bemoaning the fact he has fantastic power. Oh boo hoo.

If you can fix Thor (Ragnorock) and you can fix Captain America (Winter Solider) then you can fix Superman. You just need the right director and writers and I'm sorry to say you also need a different Superman.

I think the Batmanning of Superman only happens when you don't like the concept of Superman. Marvel (Hi elephant!) made Thor relevant in Thor, and to a greater degree Ragnarok, by putting him on the back foot and connecting him to the loss of Asgard. A Superman story like For The Man Who Has Everything does this with Superman, but how likely is that to be a major chunk of a feature film the way Thor's Asgard subplots were? And because Superman's deeply personal loss of Krypton is more "outlandish" that is, it happens in an alternate timeline/fever dream, how likely is it that any of the cast from the rest of the plot can crossover?


Marvel made Cap relevant by breaking the world around him. He lost his time, he lost SHIELD, he lost The Avengers! In order to have conflict with such strong morals they had to put everything on the line and give them cost for the hero to wrestle with so we can see them struggle with their choices, even when doing the right thing is like breathing. Lois Lane feeling some kind of way is just too small a price to pay for saving the world.

I also could watch a whole movie about Shuri, Nakia, Okoye and M'Baku (some would argue that I did, lol). These are people who are themselves capable warriors, and beyond that have an additional interesting set of skills that are unique and engaging to watch, as well as clear motivations and priorities that tie in with their jobs that tie in to the adventures of the hero/main plot.


Superman is in a difficult spot because his supporting cast can't 'join' him in the way BP's or Thor's or Cap's do. He doesn't hang out with physical peers. This doesn't mean that his supporting cast can't be interesting, but we might look more towards Batman with his Gordons and his Luciuses and his Alfreds and Leslies and his Talias and Catwomen and others who have a unique foot in the world of his adventures, without necessarily being able to have those adventures on their own. Perhaps instead of trying to make Superman himself Batman, they might do well to make Superman's supporting cast more like Batman's in terms of having a few diverse hyperskills and unique networks of contacts.

Hmm fair points, even in some pretty-good adaptations (like TAS) the focus was much more on Superman and the plots than Clark and relationships (DC characters tend to be relatively static and so work better in television). And most writers' idea of journalism-drama does seem to be to have the protagonist complain to the audience, that journalism isn't as respected as it used to be and/or that the country as a whole has gone downhill.

Edit: You could expand the type of supporting characters and interactions by, as TAS did, some more focus on police characters.

Solid. Supergirl did something similar with Maggie Sawyer on TV, and you're right, that static nature of their personal lives is kind of a big deal. This was par for the course for television just five years ago, but now in a post LOST post GoT world, there's a lot more serial storytelling that DC doesn't always flow into as well.

I'd love to see someone develop these relationships with Superman/Clark some day.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I think the Batmanning of Superman only happens when you don't like the concept of Superman.

Pretty much. The "take the Batman approach" is the the expedient one for those who have neither the interest nor the passion to dig deeper into the Superman lore.

Sorry for not responding for the rest of your post - I agree on all counts. It's just I think your first sentence concisely states the core, underlying problem here.

 

[spider-neil]

I think the Batmanning of Superman only happens when you don't like the concept of Superman. Marvel (Hi elephant!) made Thor relevant in Thor, and to a greater degree Ragnarok, by putting him on the back foot and connecting him to the loss of Asgard. A Superman story like For The Man Who Has Everything does this with Superman, but how likely is that to be a major chunk of a feature film the way Thor's Asgard subplots were? And because Superman's deeply personal loss of Krypton is more "outlandish" that is, it happens in an alternate timeline/fever dream, how likely is it that any of the cast from the rest of the plot can crossover?


Marvel made Cap relevant by breaking the world around him. He lost his time, he lost SHIELD, he lost The Avengers! In order to have conflict with such strong morals they had to put everything on the line and give them cost for the hero to wrestle with so we can see them struggle with their choices, even when doing the right thing is like breathing. Lois Lane feeling some kind of way is just too small a price to pay for saving the world.

I also could watch a whole movie about Shuri, Nakia, Okoye and M'Baku (some would argue that I did, lol). These are people who are themselves capable warriors, and beyond that have an additional interesting set of skills that are unique and engaging to watch, as well as clear motivations and priorities that tie in with their jobs that tie in to the adventures of the hero/main plot.


Superman is in a difficult spot because his supporting cast can't 'join' him in the way BP's or Thor's or Cap's do. He doesn't hang out with physical peers. This doesn't mean that his supporting cast can't be interesting, but we might look more towards Batman with his Gordons and his Luciuses and his Alfreds and Leslies and his Talias and Catwomen and others who have a unique foot in the world of his adventures, without necessarily being able to have those adventures on their own. Perhaps instead of trying to make Superman himself Batman, they might do well to make Superman's supporting cast more like Batman's in terms of having a few diverse hyperskills and unique networks of contacts.




Solid. Supergirl did something similar with Maggie Sawyer on TV, and you're right, that static nature of their personal lives is kind of a big deal. This was par for the course for television just five years ago, but now in a post LOST post GoT world, there's a lot more serial storytelling that DC doesn't always flow into as well.

I'd love to see someone develop these relationships with Superman/Clark some day.

Good post. The truth is, Superman doesn't 'have' to surrounded by his usual cast. They can put Superman into literally any situation the movie requires.
Breathe new life into Superman by changing his surroundings.
For instance they could adapt the 'Elite' storyline. Have Superman hang out with a blood thirsty group who don't care what rules they break as long as the job gets done. Have the public gravitate to this new team because they get results then you can show the audience the difference in character between Superman and why Superman will never give up his morals regardless of dwindling popularity.

1. Surround Superman was an engaging and compelling supporting cast (for example the Elite)
2. Have Superman's true character come out through conflict not exposition.

 

[unholyrevenger]

Of course the audience wants it shown to them, but.... yeah, a "great power, great responsibility" scene would likely be a step in the right direction.

The problem is that we never get inside Superman's head to find out what makes him tick. We see him constantly choose to do good things but when it comes to figuring out why? It's all guesswork. There's no real answer. He rarely speaks, instead opting to have people talk at him about what he is and what he should be, while always making the same choice over and over and over: save the day while looking sad/conflicted.

That's just not interesting. It's long been noted by both detractors and defenders that the film-makers are more interested in writing Superman as an icon/symbol than as a real flesh-and-blood character, and that's ultimately why he hasn't connected with audiences.

So yes, you're right to some extent about wanting a "great power/responsibility" scene. People just want to get to know him and hear him speak, period. I think that's understandable.

None of us is a mind reader but the majority of the time we knew what was going through Spider-Man's head. We need that clarity with Superman and we've never got it in live action. Again, how can you get behind a character you don't understand?

What it comes down to is this

*The first rule of screenwriting, *'show don't tell'.

*addendum to the first rule of screen writing: Superman Movies are exempt from this rule because after being shown Superman is a good person because he wants to be, or is inherently, a good person, Audiences do not find this sufficient rationale. Instead the audience MUST be TOLD Superman is a good person because he wants to be, or is inherently, a good person via expository dialogue.

 

[unholyrevenger]

You could get away with a dull supporting cast if the main hero (Superman) were interesting but Superman mopes around bemoaning the fact he has fantastic power. Oh boo hoo.

Here it is. The Fundamental lack of empathy people have that prevents them from understanding Superman.

Having Superman's powers are not something to be joyous about. Nor is using those powers a fundamentally good thing. They Isolate you, put every one you love at risk, while at the same time bringing you closer to and binding you to everything and everyone around you through super vision and hearing.

The only thing Zack did wrong was believing people could be empathetic to a character that doesn't quip, or a have an obvious responsibility monkey on their back .

 

[Gamma Goliath]

Picked up Brian Michael Bendis Man of Steel issue 1. It's really shows exactly what the dceu superman has been missing the whole time. We spend time inside superman's head, and it feels natural with every decision he makes.

 

[Flint Marko]

What it comes down to is this



*addendum to the first rule of screen writing: Superman Movies are exempt from this rule because after being shown Superman is a good person because he wants to be, or is inherently, a good person, Audiences do not find this sufficient rationale. Instead the audience MUST be TOLD Superman is a good person because he wants to be, or is inherently, a good person via expository dialogue.

Here it is. The Fundamental lack of empathy people have that prevents them from understanding Superman.

Having Superman's powers are not something to be joyous about. Nor is using those powers a fundamentally good thing. They Isolate you, put every one you love at risk, while at the same time bringing you closer to and binding you to everything and everyone around you through super vision and hearing.

The only thing Zack did wrong was believing people could be empathetic to a character that doesn't quip, or a have an obvious responsibility monkey on their back .

You’re missing the point.

If a character is uninteresting, devoid of a personality, constantly making the same choices over and over, and ultimately feels like a stranger after several movies, nothing they do is going to work. This isn’t unique to Superman. They’ve failed to make an interesting protagonist out of Clark, and your need to blame this on the audience tells me I’m probably wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

 

[Skrilla31]

*addendum to the first rule of screen writing: Superman Movies are exempt from this rule because after being shown Superman is a good person because he wants to be, or is inherently, a good person, Audiences do not find this sufficient rationale. Instead the audience MUST be TOLD Superman is a good person because he wants to be, or is inherently, a good person via expository dialogue.

We aren't supposed to question whether he's a good person, but we are meant to question his need and his desire to be Superman. As with any character in any movie, the audience needs to understand what drives them and what motives them.

Examples from other superhero origin movies:

- Bruce Wayne wants to be Batman so he could avenge his parents.
- Tony Stark wants to be Iron Man so he could right his wrongs.
- Steve Rogers wants to be Captain America so he could fight nazis.

But in MOS why does Clark Kent want to be Superman?

If Clark is just a good person that simply wants to be Superman from the start, then why does the film so strongly emphasize an internal conflict? Why isn't Pa Kent depicted as the villain of the piece? Isn't HE the one holding Clark back from his true destiny?

The movie is just all over the place.

 

[The Guard]

Clark wants to save people because he can, due to his fantastic powers, and because it's the right thing to do. He's wanted to do that from a young age.

Being "Superman" is something different, and on a whole different level. Superman is the result of Clark finding out who he is, and his purpose in life. It's a symbolic act. He wants to be "Superman" to give hope to others, and to honor the legacy of his parents and their wishes for him. He almost says as much in BVS, and the character path he takes in MOS and BVS more or less confirms this, and is reinforced by other characters like Martha and Lois. "Superman" is a combination of Clark's desire to save people and the desires of his Earth father and Jor-El.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about what Superman's conflict is in MOS and BVS. His conflict isn't about his desire to do good VS not doing good. That's never really in question in MOS or BVS, and has never really been in question in any version of Superman, save for the occasional brainwashing storyline detour. The conflict is about whether he should operate openly among humans, because of how humanity will react to a being of such power, especially an alien being.

As for there being no "power and responsibility" sequences...a few key pieces of dialogue come to mind:

"When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything. Our beliefs, our notions about what it means to be human."

You're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you're–that you're sent here for a reason. All these changes you're going through, one day–one day, you're going to think of them as a blessing, and when that day comes, you're going to have to make a choice: a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not."

"You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's...he's going to change the world."

Those sound an awful lot like "with great power comes great responsibility" to me, and its contextualized as such in the scenes. The scenes are literally about being careful and responsible about revealing and using the immense power that Clark has.

 

[Flint Marko]

As for there being no "power and responsibility" sequences...a few key pieces of dialogue come to mind:

"When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything. Our beliefs, our notions about what it means to be human."

You're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you're–that you're sent here for a reason. All these changes you're going through, one day–one day, you're going to think of them as a blessing, and when that day comes, you're going to have to make a choice: a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not."

"You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's...he's going to change the world."

Those sound an awful lot like "with great power comes great responsibility" to me, and its contextualized as such in the scenes. The scenes are literally about being careful and responsible about revealing and using the immense power that Clark has.

Nope. Uncle Ben’s mantra made his moral philosophy abundantly clear: if you have the ability to make the world better, it is your responsibility to do so. That’s why Peter does everything he does.

Everything you just posted from Pa Kent basically boils down to “you’re going to change the world so..... be careful”.

That’s it. There’s no real moral compass or motivation there, and getting mad at Clark for not letting kids die just further goes to show how vague and ineffective this ultimately is.

It all boils down to doing exactly what you just did: shrugging and saying “well he saves people because it's the right thing to do” which, okay, but that isn’t really in the movie and that tepid explanation highlights just how underwritten this whole thing is. It's clear to see why this version of the character failed to connect with audiences because it seems that the film-makers deliberately made sure we never understand him or get in his head.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Clark wants to save people because he can, due to his fantastic powers, and because it's the right thing to do. He's wanted to do that from a young age.

As for there being no "power and responsibility" sequences...a few key pieces of dialogue come to mind:

"When the world finds out what you can do, it's gonna change everything. Our beliefs, our notions about what it means to be human."

You're not just anyone, Clark, and I have to believe that you're–that you're sent here for a reason. All these changes you're going through, one day–one day, you're going to think of them as a blessing, and when that day comes, you're going to have to make a choice: a choice of whether to stand proud in front of the human race or not."

"You just have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be, Clark. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, he's...he's going to change the world."

Those sound an awful lot like "with great power comes great responsibility" to me, and its contextualized as such in the scenes. The scenes are literally about being careful and responsible about revealing and using the immense power that Clark has.

The speeches are similar, but Jonathan realized that Clark was going to change the lives of everyone on Earth, not just a neighborhood or city. He was a simple farmer trying to cope with caretaking a son who would become more important than a world leader. Of course Jonathan wasn't going to have all the answers to a phenomenon like that, but he was consistent in conveying the weight of it to Clark.

 

[Superchan]

Here it is. The Fundamental lack of empathy people have that prevents them from understanding Superman.

Having Superman's powers are not something to be joyous about. Nor is using those powers a fundamentally good thing. They Isolate you, put every one you love at risk, while at the same time bringing you closer to and binding you to everything and everyone around you through super vision and hearing.

The only thing Zack did wrong was believing people could be empathetic to a character that doesn't quip, or a have an obvious responsibility monkey on their back .

That's your opinion, I think that having superman's powers and being able to help others and make a difference would be sheer joy! Sadly this didn't mesh with Snyder's cynical and flawed style of film making. Also no one asked for a superman that quipped nor would many have minded a superman who occasionally felt the weight of responsibility, however what most people ended up hating was an emo superman who was devoid of any semblance of joy.
I said it before and I will say it again, whoever takes over directing duties next needs to do what Snyder and -to a lesser extent- Whedon couldn't do and that is find a BALANCE, something that any character worth it's salt needs to have.

 

[Tra-El]

Good post. The truth is, Superman doesn't 'have' to surrounded by his usual cast. They can put Superman into literally any situation the movie requires.
Breathe new life into Superman by changing his surroundings.
For instance they could adapt the 'Elite' storyline. Have Superman hang out with a blood thirsty group who don't care what rules they break as long as the job gets done. Have the public gravitate to this new team because they get results then you can show the audience the difference in character between Superman and why Superman will never give up his morals regardless of dwindling popularity.

1. Surround Superman was an engaging and compelling supporting cast (for example the Elite)
2. Have Superman's true character come out through conflict not exposition.

Superman should be a beacon. He should be a mentor. A leader and a voice of reason. He's the ultimate equalizer in every setting. Let him teach.

If you want to change his surroundings then how about a creative movie twist on Bizarro World? That would be a pretty neat concept to explore on the big screen. Instead of the Bizarro character being evil or a twisted version of Superman, challenge the art of Superman's moral code and have him figure out how to communicate a backwards approach of ethics. It could be a funny and heartwarming Adventure with a lot of ups and downs of the misunderstood nature of how Bizarro's think. Adventures in places like the Phantom Zone that warps reality could test Superman's abilities to the limits.

This is why I like the concept of Superman appearing in Shazam! and mentoring Billy. I always said you learn something new every day when the student becomes the teacher since you learn something new about yourself when things are being presented out loud and personal. We need more of that to get to know what makes this DCEU Superman tick other than heat vision, freeze breath and x-ray vision. Kal has been put through the ringer in 3 movies. Now let's see how he feels about that and allow those experience's make him a more rounded and sincere version of the character.

 

[The Guard]

Nope.

You don't believe that the scenes in question are about responsible stewardship of his powers, or you don't believe that a speech about being responsible with your abilities is similar to a speech about being responsible with your abilities?

Uncle Ben’s mantra made his moral philosophy abundantly clear: if you have the ability to make the world better, it is your responsibility to do so. That’s why Peter does everything he does.

I didn't say it was the exact same moral philosophy. The scenes do however, present a philosophy regarding responsible use of power.

Superman has responsibilities beyond "you can use your powers to help people". These are the issues Jonathan Kent is discussing with him.

Everything you just posted from Pa Kent basically boils down to “you’re going to change the world so..... be careful

I mean, you're reducing the message of the film quite a bit, but yeah, that's the jist of it.

That’s it. There’s no real moral compass or motivation there, and getting mad at Clark for not letting kids die just further goes to show how vague and ineffective this ultimately is.

He's not mad at Clark. He's frustrated with the situation and worried about his son. He approaches the issue with urgency, but compassion for his son.

You don't believe there's a moral suggestion inherent in pointing out to someone that because of their vast powers, they have a responsibility to be careful about how they reveal themselves and how they use that power within the broader world?

Morally, he literally talks about how "good character or bad" will affect the outcome of how the world changes.

It all boils down to doing exactly what you just did: shrugging and saying “well he saves people because it's the right thing to do” which, okay, but that isn’t really in the movie and that tepid explanation highlights just how underwritten this whole thing is. It's clear to see why this version of the character failed to connect with audiences because it seems that the film-makers deliberately made sure we never understand him or get in his head.

No one SAYS that in the movie, but the idea that he saves people because it's the right thing to do or because he can is found in the film. Because we see him doing it. Specifically as a child. The film shows him literally watching the reasons to do it; people in fear and drowning, and then acting to prevent the disaster.

Plenty of films and stories show people saving people because it's the right thing to do.

The character likely didn't connect with audiences for the same reason many don't...because he wasn't likeable. The filmmakers largely focused on his burdens when they got in his head, he wasn't especially positive or fun, and lots of people didn't find that a likeable characterization.

It has little to do with audiences not having the obvious pointed out to them. I don't think a serious, burdened Superman who was told to use his powers to help people and repeated the lesson to show he'd learned it would have connected that much better.

 

[Flint Marko]

You don't believe that the scenes in question are about responsible stewardship of his powers, or you don't believe that a speech about being responsible with your abilities is similar to a speech about being responsible with your abilities?



I didn't say it was the exact same moral philosophy. The scenes do however, present a philosophy regarding responsible use of power.

Superman has responsibilities beyond "you can use your powers to help people". These are the issues Jonathan Kent is discussing with him.



I mean, you're reducing the message of the film quite a bit, but yeah, that's the jist of it.



He's not mad at Clark. He's frustrated with the situation and worried about his son. He approaches the issue with urgency, but compassion for his son.

You don't believe there's a moral suggestion inherent in pointing out to someone that because of their vast powers, they have a responsibility to be careful about how they reveal themselves and how they use that power within the broader world?

Morally, he literally talks about how "good character or bad" will affect the outcome of how the world changes.

You're missing the point.

Pa Kent speaks to the central conflict of the film, but tells us nothing about why Clark ultimately wants to do good, proven by the fact that Clark is already good. He's already saving people for reasons we're never clued in on. Conversely, the great power speech can be directly traced to Spider-man's motivations because it gives him a concrete moral ideal that changes him. Pa Kent does not, merely telling him vaguely that he's going to be important and that he should also maybe let kids die because he's that important.

That isn't a motivation. Sure, Pa says how "good character or bad" will affect the outcome of how the world changes, but he doesn't tip the scale in telling Clark how and why specifically to be a good person like Uncle Ben's speech, because he's already a good person. That's the entire point.

No one SAYS that in the movie, but the idea that he saves people because it's the right thing to do or because he can is found in the film. Because we see him doing it. Specifically as a child. The film shows him literally watching the reasons to do it; people in fear and drowning, and then acting to prevent the disaster.

We're shown characters we don't know in peril and he saves them. We don't know who these people are or, more importantly, what they mean to Superman, but he saves them. Just like he always does.

But... why? You get how this doesn't answer the question of what motivates Superman? Like.... at all?

Plenty of films and stories show people saving people because it's the right thing to do.

The character didn't connect with audiences because he wasn't likeable. The filmmakers largely focused on his burdens when they got in his head, he wasn't especially positive or fun, and lots of people didn't find that a likeable characterization.

It has little to do with audiences not having the obvious pointed out to them. I don't think a serious, burdened Superman who was told to use his powers to help people and repeated the lesson to show he'd learned it would have connected that much better.

Almost every worthwhile superhero film ever made has some sort of reasoning explicitly shown to explain why our hero does what they do (Cap doesn't like bullies, Spider-man wants to use his powers responsibly, etc.), but in this case our protagonist's motivation is just "obvious" and not worth including at any point? Okay.

I'm not saying that couldn't ever work as I don't think it's some unwritten rule that every superhero has to have a clearly laid out motivation, but this version of Clark is such a cypher that it would have done wonders just to figure out what makes him tick. There are many reasons why Clark didn't connect with audiences, and it all boils down to how underwritten he is. That's why he's unlikable. It isn't because he's burdened and serious, we've seen that work before so that doesn't add up. It's because we ultimately don't understand who he is or why he does what he does.