Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[misslane38]

This is my expression.

I am not moved.

What I do next is not inspired by compassion.

There's clearly a small smile forming on his lips. He was a beneficiary of an act of compassion, and it gives him pause. This act of compassion is followed by another. It isn't a coincidence.

You have invested a lot of time into responding to arguments I have not made, and not to ones I have. This, as you know, is called the strawman fallacy. I feel confident that anyone reading these posts can see that clearly, and no longer hope for anything different.

Your entire argument is based on double standards and factual inaccuracies. You set a standard for quality only to blatantly disregard it when it doesn't fit your thesis.

This entire debate, interestingly enough underlines why making a good Superman movie is so hard. Not only is the value and skill of previous incarnations misunderstood and mischaracterized, but people subscribe deeply to highly anachronistic interpretations. In the eyes of some, Superman is simplicity itself, and the exploration of that simplicity and its conflict with our complicated is considered simple wish fulfillment.

I love Superman: The Movie. I love its wish-fulfillment and rom-com elements. I am only agreeing with Mark Waid who posited that Superman media never really explores the source of Clark's desire to do good. When one argues that a Superman film should explore his motivation to do good, then one would expect that the best Superman film would feature this vital element. It does not. I don't dislike it because it doesn't.

There's a lot of theory to be had in terms of filmmaking and themes and power levels, but the fact that Man of Steel has ardent followers who will vocally detract from all other incarnations, no matter how successful, as poorly made in comparison. It'd be like if The Force Awakens had been The Last Jedi. Making a good Star Wars movie would be crazy because however you define Star Wars, you're putting, at the very least, a vocal minority off.

The only way that I'm detracting from all other incarnations is the same way Mark Waid detracted from it, which is to say that other incarnations don't do complex character work to explain the source of Superman's altruism.

 

[Limonade]

...are you suggesting that I have indicated somewhere that Clark's motivations in the school bus scene have to do with his parent's legacy?

...what?

He did it for a very specific reason; so that his classmates wouldn't drown. I rely on the film that shows us him avoiding that outcome.


The idea that I cannot complain about another character's motivation in another piece of writing because of how I feel about a character in a different film is ridiculous.

It's not projecting. I've broken down the visual elements the film conveys. There are clear things the films shows happening. Those things are placed in a specific context.

No, you cannot always just say "visual storytelling", but you can say "visual storytelling conveys concept X" when visual storytelling conveys concept X.

I never said "As long as you can conclude someone is bad or good" that this is "good enough". I said that not wanting people to suffer and die is a valid reason to want to save them.

Actually, I think it's you going into these diatribes.

It's not possible to say "visual storytelling conveys concept X" at least with this film because some of the concept are so vague it can mean a plethora of other things (including but not limited to poor film-making)... which is why there's still arguments about the film to this very day.

 

[The Guard]

The early scenes aren't just connected, they are essentially the same: loner saves people for unspoken reasons, showing us no growth has taken place in the between time, making the childhood scenes useless in drawing us further into his character.

Which is why I used the word "parallel". There are intentional similarities, which is part of that dramatization thing you love to talk about so much.

The drifter scene is designed to show us where he is at that point in his life, and to make us question why he's in that place as a character.

The alienated little boy sequences are designed to show us where his motivation to become that person began, and the film spends time catching us up to the later point in his life where we began.

The film dramatizes his lack of character development as he continues being the same loner rescuer motif as he dons the Superman cape, and so we see finding his "purpose" with his people has no effect on his life, driving home the pointlessness of the initial 20 minutes by recapping it in an ACTUALLY efficient expo dump that would be far more interesting if we didn't know more about Krypton than the protagonist at that point.

Him learning about his legacy has a huge effect on his life, as he adopts the symbol of his homeworld and seeks to honor his father's wishes and to redeem Krypton's legacy, and also has to make value judgements about bringing Krypton back.

As for the expo dump not being interesting...there's a minute 30 seconds of Clark meeting Jor-El, learning who he is, and the name of his homeworld, as well as about its environment. Which is important information for Clark to know, and which is effectively dramatized. Jor-El spends 15 seconds telling Clark about Zod and that they saved him from Krypton's fate.

The rest of the info dump actually includes a considerable amount of new information, and we learn things about Krypton that we did not. The scene contexualizes Krypton, its successes, and its failures in ways we have not previously seen, and which are relevant to Jor-El's motivations, Clark's motivations, and Zod's.

We learn about:
-Krypton's technical advancement and space exploration
-The outposts, and the abandonment of looking outward
-Terraforming, which becomes key later in the film
-We learn the actual reason Krypton was destroyed, tied to natural resource depletion.
-Jor-El teaches Clark about the genesis chamber, and fleshes out the nature of the genetic engineering.
-We learn Jor-El and Lara's philosophy for Krypton's children and his hopes for Clark and the future of Earth is revealed over about a minute.

All this builds to him revealing himself to humanity, to finish off what almost passes for an arc from his conversations with Johnathan, but then... he doesn't even do that, he reveals himself to the military, which the movie incorrectly presumes will have the same effect on the audience.

It doesn't pass for an arc...there's a clear arc there.

The military is him revealing himself to human authority. IE, humanity.

He chooses to stand with humanity, and spends most of the second and third act doing so, which is what Jonathan was talking about him having to decide about doing. So yes, the events actually are connected to his conversations with Jonathan.

 

[The Guard]

Actually, I think it's you going into these diatribes.

It's not possible to say "visual storytelling conveys concept X" at least with this film because some of the concept are so vague it can mean a plethora of other things (including but not limited to poor film-making)... which is why there's still arguments about the film to this very day.

Umm...did I say Flint was going into diatribes? Or anything along those lines?

I didn't realize that directly saving people from a horrible fate and the inherent compassion in that act was all that vague.

 

[Limonade]

Umm...did I say Flint was going into diatribes?

I didn't realize that directly saving people from a horrible fate and the inherent compassion in that act was all that vague.

No. I'm saying you are going into diatribes.

You're language was becoming somewhat sounding bitter and accusing others of trolling. When we're all just trying to understand each other's point of views. And obviously our point of views are held firmly to our positions.

Just ease up. I see you corrected it so I won't go further.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Why wouldn't it be vague? Jonathan didn't know Clark's purpose, and half the film is about Clark trying to find his purpose; why would Jonathan need to know a specific one, and how would watering down Clark's journey of self discovery serve the film?

It's entirely possible Jonathan didn't know how powerful Clark would become. Clark only discovers he can fly by testing his limits later in the film, for instance, and its implied that he doesn't know HOW strong he is, or what his limits truly are.

If they're intentionally vague, what's the purpose of showing these conversations with Clark? If they were meant to develop the characters, and establish the strong bond they have with one another, they didn't work for me. They alternated between chastising, lecturing, and bickering. He hugged Clark once telling him that "he is his son", but that's as warm as this relationship got.

These conversations could have also served as establishing the movie's theme. Jonathan left Clark with the messages that a.) the decisions he makes in life will be very important and could even change the world, and b.) the world isn't ready to know he is an alien. These messages wouldn't clash with one another if point B wasn't emphasized so heavily. However, it was emphasized so heavily that Jonathan scolds Clark for saving a bus full of innocent civilians - this was an important choice that Clark made. He made the compassionate, altruistic choice. So is Jonathan telling him that decisions will only become important in adulthood? Or that this was an important decision, and Clark should hold off on saving lives even when he could easily save them? If he thinks such a heroic act takes "maturing into", he should defend this argument. He doesn't.

No he doesn't define what "force for good" means, because the phrase defines itself. Jor-El is letting CLark find his own path, just like Jonathan did. He simply believes Clark can be a force for good. He doesn't say "You have to be". He says "You can be".

He leaves it up to Clark to decide. He's simply saying that Clark has advantages, and that he believes in Clark's potential to do good.

The phrase doesn't exactly define itself. People can be good in a multitude of ways - and these certainly aren't limited to becoming a superhero. Heroism implies risking your life to save the lives of others. The term "good" is far too broad for that.

Now, I suppose you'll say that Jor-El doesn't have to tell Clark to be a hero; he's letting Clark decide. The problem is, Jor-El does tell Clark what he wants Superman to stand for. He does tell him that symbolizing free will is his intended purpose. Free will and heroism are not synonymous. Yet Clark goes on to become a superhero, symbolizing altruism. So what's the purpose of Jor-El giving Clark a lecture on free will instead?

So are many of the things people say to inspire each other in real life, let alone in other superhero stories. One in particular, which we've discussed enough in this thread.

That doesn't make them meaningless.

Yes, ironically enough, people here have taken criticism for using vague language without further explanation.

 

[misslane38]

The early scenes aren't just connected, they are essentially the same: loner saves people for unspoken reasons, showing us no growth has taken place in the between time, making the childhood scenes useless in drawing us further into his character. The film dramatizes his lack of character development as he continues being the same loner rescuer motif as he dons the Superman cape, and so we see finding his "purpose" with his people has no effect on his life, driving home the pointlessness of the initial 20 minutes by recapping it in an ACTUALLY efficient expo dump that would be far more interesting if we didn't know more about Krypton than the protagonist at that point.

The childhood scenes are about how Clark is initially inspired to help people because one girl stood up for him in front of a bully after years of being an isolated and lonely freak who wasn't allowed to play with other kids. He has to stifle his impulse to help people because his powers can change the world, but he can see how saving a bully created a friend.

The adult scenes of Clark saving people reveal how the character has developed. He's not keeping the special side of himself a secret anymore. He's not standing proud in front of the human race, but he is testing his limits, including saving a nosey journalist from a great metropolitan newspaper.

Donning the cape after learning his origins and testing his limits with his saves leads us to the question Clark asks Lois in the cemetery: "My father was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready. What do you think?" Keep in mind, this is after Lois's investigation neatly revisits all of his saves until we arrive at the first one.

From here, the question of readiness becomes more important because Clark must choose whether or not to trust Zod or to trust humanity. His experience with the Kents, Lana, Pete, Chrissy, Lois, and Leone give him what he needs to take a leap of faith on us.

Clark has grown because he now sees his powers as blessings. He has grown because in the process of searching for his origins, he's met people along the way who, like Lana and Pete, have acted with compassion in big and in small ways, and he's returned that compassion with his own. This path of reciprocal compassion leads to revealing himself to a reporter and to the discovery of his Kryptonian legacy.

Man this movie is poorly made. GoodNIGHT. All this builds to him revealing himself to humanity, to finish off what almost passes for an arc from his conversations with Johnathan, but then... he doesn't even do that, he reveals himself to the military, which the movie incorrectly presumes will have the same effect on the audience.

The military and the government would obviously pose the greatest threat to Superman's continued free and benign existence Earth. Who else but the military/government do you imagine the Kents were worried about taking their son away from them? He reveals himself first to his greatest existential obstacle. It has a massive effect because it is the biggest leap of faith Superman could take starting out, and he does it because Lois is there after taking a massive leap of faith on him. Reciprocal compassion.

 

[MbJ]

They were fine with it because the instances of him being kind, thoughtful, and selfless far outweighed the acts of selfishness. In both instances he was established as a beacon of hope before he decided to make concessions on his ideals.

Amen. I think that's why so many people found a lot of the stuff in JL unearned by the preceding films.

 

[misslane38]

They were fine with it because the instances of him being kind, thoughtful, and selfless far outweighed the acts of selfishness. In both instances he was established as a beacon of hope before he decided to make concessions on his ideals.

DCEU Superman doesn't act selfishly and he also doesn't make concessions on his ideals. He is characterized as kind, thoughtful, and selfless on numerous occasions throughout his childhood and adulthood. He only stifles these impulses when he believes helping in small ways will actually hurt people in bigger ways. He is shown to inspire people like Batman and the rest of the Justice League while also establishing a paradigm for heroes that Amanda Walller references in SS. Although his presence creates an existential conflict with humanity, his actions and sacrifice help them through it.

Meanwhile, Donner Superman acts from a place of selfishness throughout both films. He is presented as someone whose motivation is derived from a place of vanity and from selfishness. Saving people, for him, is like scoring touchdowns. It's how he gets to be a hero, like a quarterback might seem to his school or town, and get the girl. He doesn't develop a more mature outlook until Zod attacks and he sees how those he loves suffers as a result of his selfishness, and even then he doesn't strive to overcome the arbitrary limits Jor-El places on him by allowing himself to have both love and be a hero. He tells Lois he's here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way, but we don't see him do that or serve as a beacon of hope in his films. His world isn't presented that much differently before and after his debut, and the franchise only starts to get around to exploring these aspects of Superman in its fourth and final installment.

 

[Limonade]

DCEU Superman doesn't act selfishly and he also doesn't make concessions on his ideals. He is characterized as kind, thoughtful, and selfless on numerous occasions throughout his childhood and adulthood. He only stifles these impulses when he believes helping in small ways will actually hurt people in bigger ways. He is shown to inspire people like Batman and the rest of the Justice League while also establishing a paradigm for heroes that Amanda Walller references in SS. Although his presence creates an existential conflict with humanity, his actions and sacrifice help them through it.

Meanwhile, Donner Superman acts from a place of selfishness throughout both films. He is presented as someone whose motivation is derived from a place of vanity and from selfishness. Saving people, for him, is like scoring touchdowns. It's how he gets to be a hero, like a quarterback might seem to his school or town, and get the girl. He doesn't develop a more mature outlook until Zod attacks and he sees how those he loves suffers as a result of his selfishness, and even then he doesn't strive to overcome the arbitrary limits Jor-El places on him by allowing himself to have both love and be a hero. He tells Lois he's here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way, but we don't see him do that or serve as a beacon of hope in his films. His world isn't presented that much differently before and after his debut, and the franchise only starts to get around to exploring these aspects of Superman in its fourth and final installment.

 

[SnyderCut2020]

Meanwhile, Donner Superman acts from a place of selfishness throughout both films. He is presented as someone whose motivation is derived from a place of vanity and from selfishness. Saving people, for him, is like scoring touchdowns. It's how he gets to be a hero, like a quarterback might seem to his school or town, and get the girl. He doesn't develop a more mature outlook until Zod attacks and he sees how those he loves suffers as a result of his selfishness, and even then he doesn't strive to overcome the arbitrary limits Jor-El places on him by allowing himself to have both love and be a hero. He tells Lois he's here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way, but we don't see him do that or serve as a beacon of hope in his films. His world isn't presented that much differently before and after his debut, and the franchise only starts to get around to exploring these aspects of Superman in its fourth and final installment.

Excellent analysis. And so true. In fact, I wonder why Reeve's Superman never did save his dad when he clearly had the power to do so (no matter how corny it was, I mean really, spin the Earth in the opposite direction to go back in time? Comedy gold, but I digress), but chose not to and instead just save the girl, keep in mind, the girl who he hides his true identity from, a girl who is love with Superman and not Clark Kent, he doesn't even get/earn a kiss at the end for the save! Almost, but not quite. And we're back to square one with a final kiss of amnesia to erase all that character development away! Shame.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They were fine with it because the instances of him being kind, thoughtful, and selfless far outweighed the acts of selfishness. In both instances he was established as a beacon of hope before he decided to make concessions on his ideals.

That's true of the vast majority of superheroes. It is true for Batman, Spider-Man, etc. Even someone as flawed as Iron Man (who is extremely flawed by superhero film standards) still has his virtues portrayed as being greater than his flaws. If the flaws are greater, the character almost always ends up being a villain, like Magneto. There are exceptions (I would say Frank Castle in the Netflix show is like that), but it is really rare in the genre.

But that's not the argument. The argument is whether audiences will accept a Superman who isn't perfect (one without flaws who NEVER makes the selfish choice). Superman I & II shows that they will. In SMII in particular Superman's mistakes make up the backbone of the film. It actually ends up worse than the similar storyline being used in Spider-Man 2 as in Superman it leads directly to Zod taking over without Superman to fight him, while in Spider-Man 2 it was more about Peter Parker's personal fulfillment and the Doc Ock conflict would have happened the same regardless.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Excellent analysis. And so true. In fact, I wonder why Reeve's Superman never did save his dad when he clearly had the power to do so (no matter how corny it was, I mean really, spin the Earth in the opposite direction to go back in time? Comedy gold, but I digress), but chose not to and instead just save the girl, keep in mind, the girl who he hides his true identity from, a girl who is love with Superman and not Clark Kent, he doesn't even get/earn a kiss at the end for the save! Almost, but not quite. And we're back to square one with a final kiss of amnesia to erase all that character development away! Shame.

He couldn't save his Dad. First of all, this was 18 year old Kal-El before his 12 years of training in the Fortress of Solitude so it is hard to say whether he even had the ability yet. And even if he did, his father died of a heart condition. If he rewound time, he would just die again. Superman doesn't have healing powers. Clark specifically says he doesn't have the power to save him. It has nothing to do with will.

 

[SnyderCut2020]

He couldn't save his Dad. First of all, this was 18 year old Kal-El before his 12 years of training in the Fortress of Solitude so it is hard to say whether he even had the ability yet. And even if he did, his father died of a heart condition. If he rewound time, he would just die again. Superman doesn't have healing powers. Clark specifically says he doesn't have the power to save him. It has nothing to do with will.

Clark says he didn't have the power to save him at the time and he says this in his head as a thought, but he does now at the moment! Get it? And who's to say he didn't have the power to heal his dad? I mean, we never were given the full extent and range of his powers until the plot demanded it, lol.. Amnesia kiss? Flying S saran wrap? Turn back time (And then you have the 'science' of time travel, there should be 2 Superman in the new timeline since Reeve's tampered with human history by going back in time and "re-started" it)? It's like his powers were just made up for sake of the plot as the movie went along...

At any rate, he didn't have to physically heal Jon Kent with a super-power, but instead, go back far enough to warn him maybe a year or two, maybe a few weeks, whatever, like hey, "Pops, y'know, you really should take better care of yourself, because..." or at least TRY to take him into the hospital to get looked at and diagnose the problem ahead of time. Lol.. It really isn't that complicated.

 

[lordofthenerds]

The Donner films had their issues, but they were released after Adam West's Batman had been the gold standard of comic book movies. Man of Steel followed 1.5 decades of a constantly improving genre.

 

[SnyderCut2020]

Man of Steel followed 1.5 decades of a constantly improving genre.

And MoS improved that genre by 20-fold.

 

[Superchan]

...........................It's like his powers were just made up for sake of the plot as the movie went along...

They really were, to an extent. Superman II was the where superman was supposed to reverse time not superman I but they were running out of time and got desperate.
To be fair to Donner and Co. the bronze age superman was able to turn back time and infact did so in one comic to make sure that he'd never met Lois Lane because she was so damn annoying (and useless) but then ended up meeting another reporter who was even more annoying.....no really I'm not kidding.

Clark didn't turn back time when pa kent died because simply he couldn't! At that age he was shown to barely outrun a train, let alone fly faster than light.

Donner's superman films weren't perfect by any stretch but the reason why Reeve's superman is still beloved while Snyder's superman is derided by most is because the former was charming, charismatic and clever while being flawed the latter was a mopey, emo, dialogue challenged nihilist.

 

[fan4stic]

If they're intentionally vague, what's the purpose of showing these conversations with Clark? If they were meant to develop the characters, and establish the strong bond they have with one another, they didn't work for me. They alternated between chastising, lecturing, and bickering. He hugged Clark once telling him that "he is his son", but that's as warm as this relationship got.

Compare that with Thomas Wayne and Bruce's scenes in Batman Begins. Oddly enough I feel like we get more time with Jonathan, while Thomas has more personality as a character. Jonathan is stuck in 1 setting in all his scenes: moody. Funny, Thomas even dies more proactively than Jonathan does too to me. We get a feeling for Thomas as a person much more than Jonathan in MOS to me. In his 3 or 4 scenes, we see the softness in his relationship with Bruce with him tickling Bruce and being playful and winking at him as he takes the rap for Bruce in leaving the opera, he cracks a joke about the men in his company being more interested in it than himself, he gets shot trying to protect his wife. You don't need those things for the plot or theme, but they're because it fleshes the character out. Jonathan doesn't have those. His character, like Jor-El, is there to talk about the theme, as far as I can tell.

 

[fan4stic]

And MoS improved that genre by 20-fold.

I don't agree. It hits some similar issues as the Donner movie to me.

 

[fan4stic]

At any rate, he didn't have to physically heal Jon Kent with a super-power, but instead, go back far enough to warn him maybe a year or two, maybe a few weeks, whatever, like hey, "Pops, y'know, you really should take better care of yourself, because..." or at least TRY to take him into the hospital to get looked at and diagnose the problem ahead of time. Lol.. It really isn't that complicated.

It took him a bit of work to get back a few minutes. That's pretty complicated. Not that I'm defending that movie. It's not one I really like much.

 

[OutOfBoose]

There's clearly a small smile forming on his lips. He was a beneficiary of an act of compassion, and it gives him pause. This act of compassion is followed by another. It isn't a coincidence.

I can easily interpret the tiny smile as Clark being baffled by the level of danger. Nothing in this scene speaks about precisely compassion. The motivation of the sailor might be that he doesn't want to fill papers because of accidental death or injury on his ship. If it was intended to show how Clark is being impressed by the act of compassion, then it's terrible storytelling and Snyder got what he deserved.

 

[CLARKY]

It's been discussed to death at this point, but in the interest of starting yet another thread, what is it about Superman that making a successful movie about him, in this day and age, is so difficult? Maybe his personality, compared to other fictional protagonists, is just too squeaky clean? I don't know, but I wish I knew the answer.

Any opinions?

I'd say the first mistake is to consider he's "squeaky clean" as you put it.
I think, it has always been difficult to write a positive character and make it "bankable".

It seems there's an almost impossibility to "get" the heart of Superman, because most people are full of cynicism while Superman is an open book while staying solid and full of dream. I'd say he does not get along well with the desillusion of adultness. For most, not for me.
All-star Superman is the perfect exampl of that. The hero can be great, brave, nice, and positive, while having great and crazy adventures. But how many writers are able to really put their mind into Superman mode ?

Then, there's the fact, most people have gigantic and crazy expectations about the character, so to make him work in a stand alone story is near impossible.

Then, I'd say that most people write him as they write batman. But then again, most writers do. They apply the batman formula to every superhero from DC.

Then, C.Reeves is still in the minds of everyone and it's difficult to go beyond that. Also because some people are unable to do so. They magnified him so much that it's impossible to reach. Henry Cavill was, IMO, a excellent choice. He was naturally kind and positive. The problem is not about Henry Cavill AT ALL for me, but about the portrayal/characterization of the character. Still, in MoS, I can see glinches of a great Superman.
Also, the fact that the C.Reeves movies were really THAT positive, what we now call "naiv", because everything has to be dark to be taken seriously.

Finally, I'd say it's also the way he's portrayed most of the time : a powerhouse. Hitting things. Because young male want to see "action" and "action" means fight. While the heart and brain of Supes is like Luthor's cleverness : infinite. So,until we find someone able to actually see the difference between Superman and Thor/Hulk/Stallone-type guy,it will be difficult to actually grasp the symbolism of the Superman character. And he will always be "hard to write".
My 2 cents.

 

[MbJ]

But that's not the argument. The argument is whether audiences will accept a Superman who isn't perfect (one without flaws who NEVER makes the selfish choice). Superman I & II shows that they will. In SMII in particular Superman's mistakes make up the backbone of the film. It actually ends up worse than the similar storyline being used in Spider-Man 2 as in Superman it leads directly to Zod taking over without Superman to fight him, while in Spider-Man 2 it was more about Peter Parker's personal fulfillment and the Doc Ock conflict would have happened the same regardless.

Bingo. I roll my eyes at a lot of these defenses because they rely on some ridiculous strawman about how the only reason audiences didn't like these movies is because they don't like heroes who have flaws or selfish choices, when pretty much the entire history of superhero cinema after the 90s disproves this notion.

 

[SnyderCut2020]

And then you have the other side who claim it's OK to have flaws and make selfish choices as long as you smile and have charismatic joyful fun when you're making that selfish decision to toss your enemy down a bottomless pit to his death. Ha!

 

[MbJ]

Literally nobody in here argued that. Again, strawman. Even the DCAU managed to have a Superman who had flaws and anger (see him trying to murder Darkseid for what he did to him or the entire debacle with Captain Marvel) while also still making him likable. It's not rocket science.