Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[SnyderCut2020]

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.

So Snyder's Superman isn't likable? Is that what this boils down to? Lol.. There are plenty of fans who would disagree with that! Also, according to Rotten Tomatoes, 75% of the audience enjoyed Man of Steel.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Is "likeable" really the correct term to use here? It seems to be too much of a value statement to me. I think they could keep Superman's morality but also make him more charismatic and optimistic. The latter two characteristics would make him more likeable to many.

When he's moral but dull and joyless, he comes off as seeming more moralistic than moral. When he makes value statements (ie. "Zod can't be trusted. The problem is, I'm not sure the people of Earth can be either"; "Wouldn't be much of a surrender if I resisted. And if it makes them feel more secure, then... then all the better for it"), and keeps a stoic, steely stare throughout the film, it seems a bit self-righteous. As though he's constantly thinking, "The world's a corrupt place, people are bad, and they ought to be better." Maybe he's right - but such thinking won't earn him much endearment.

 

[MbJ]

So Snyder's Superman isn't likable?

Less that and more boring and uncharismatic. That's not Cavill's fault; he's been fine in other movies. He just has nothing to work with here.

 

[OutOfBoose]

DCFU Superman is an empty vessel. Fill it with whatever you like.

 

[lordofthenerds]

DCFU Superman is an empty vessel. Fill it with whatever you like.

Yeah, I'll probably take some heat for the second half of my last post. Truth is, Clark didn't really reveal much personality in MOS (or BvS, for the matter). MOS was really a story that revolved around self-discovery, though I didn't feel like there was much pay off there. Moralistic cynicism was more of just the vibe I got - the film's overall somber atmosphere, and a focus on humanity fearing/hating Superman probably contributed to this.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Less that and more boring and uncharismatic. That's not Cavill's fault; he's been fine in other movies. He just has nothing to work with here.

Pretty much this. I don't find him a repulsive character the way I do Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man. He's just a bland, dull lot of nothing.

 

[misslane38]

I'll just repost an adapted version of what I said in another thread, since it's relevant here.

What I like about Cavill's Clark/Superman isn't a sort of generic gregariousness, but more of a Mr. Rogers personality. Low key, romantic, gentle, kind, and down to earth is what I like best about him. Grant Morrison described meeting with a Superman cosplayer once and how the ease in his demeanor inspired his approach to Superman in All-Star. For me, when Superman is written to say lame jokes or his personality is over the top, that ease just doesn't feel there. For example, when I watch RDJ's Tony Stark, I can feel how his noisier, so to speak, personality quirks are kind of covering up something the way an air freshener might cover up a smell.

MOS was really a story that revolved around self-discovery, though I didn't feel like there was much pay off there. Moralistic cynicism was more of just the vibe I got - the film's overall somber atmosphere, and a focus on humanity fearing/hating Superman probably contributed to this.

What aspect or aspects of the self-discovery arc weren't paid off? Was there something specific you were looking for that didn't happen? What is moralistic cynicism, or how are you defining that? How did it come through for you in the film?

 

[lordofthenerds]

What aspect or aspects of the self-discovery arc weren't paid off? Was there something specific you were looking for that didn't happen?

His personality never shifted upon discovering who he truly was. Minus the suit, he remained the same from beginning to end, carrying on through BvS.

What is moralistic cynicism, or how are you defining that? How did it come through for you in the film?

I was referring to what I said in my prior post. Moralism is the tendency to make negative judgements about the morality of others. Cynicism refers to a general negative outlook regarding the motives of others. The meaning of the terms combined should be obvious, and I've already noted how I thought it came through.

 

[misslane38]

His personality never shifted upon discovering who he truly was. Minus the suit, he remained the same from beginning to end, carrying on through BvS.

Sure, it did. He stopped being a ghost. He established relationships with people rather than running away. He demonstrated genuine joy and happiness upon learning his origins. At the end of the film, he's an established public superhero who gets a real job and has a romantic relationship. Discovering the truth about his origins shouldn't cause a drastic change in personality. That would be extraordinarily odd. Human beings don't work that way. What discovering his origins and taking a leap of faith on humanity did for Clark was allow him to become Superman. Superman is the change in Clark's personality. Rather than hiding a part of himself, he shares that part of himself proudly.

I was referring to what I said in my prior post. Moralism is the tendency to make negative judgements about the morality of others. Cynicism refers to a general negative outlook regarding the motives of others. The meaning of the terms combined should be obvious, and I've already noted how I thought it came through.

As far as I'm aware, moralism isn't about making "negative" judgments, just judgments, and moral cynicism is an actual term that has a different definition altogether; it means to basically "a person who regularly shows a disregard for moral considerations in the pursuit of his goals, and shows minimal concern for other people's well-being." Throughout the film, Martha says things like "the truth about you is beautiful and we knew one day the world would see that" and Jonathan says that one day he thought his son would be able to see his gifts as a blessing, that he could stand proud in front of the human race, and be a man of good character that changed the world. Jor-El and Lara's whole motivation is based on hope. Meanwhile, Clark seeks out advice from people like Father Leone and he emphasizes the value of faith when considering turning himself over to Zod; later, Clark compliments Lois' faith in him. The overall impression is one of cautious optimism, not cynicism.

 

[fan4stic]

I can easily interpret the tiny smile as Clark being baffled by the level of danger. Nothing in this scene speaks about precisely compassion.

I think this is that generalized characterization I was talking about, to me, without developing the details of the character as a person, to me.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Sure, it did. He stopped being a ghost. He established relationships with people rather than running away. He demonstrated genuine joy and happiness upon learning his origins. At the end of the film, he's an established public superhero who gets a real job and has a romantic relationship. Discovering the truth about his origins shouldn't cause a drastic change in personality. That would be extraordinarily odd. Human beings don't work that way. What discovering his origins and taking a leap of faith on humanity did for Clark was allow him to become Superman. Superman is the change in Clark's personality. Rather than hiding a part of himself, he shares that part of himself proudly.

He did establish a relationship with Lois, but that's it. I disagree about him expressing genuine joy and happiness when discovering the truth about himself - his facial expressions didn't seem to signify any particular emotion apart from maybe slight confusion and surprise. His emotions seemed blunted throughout the second and final act, until he snapped Zod's neck and screamed in anguish.

As far as I'm aware, moralism isn't about making "negative" judgments, just judgments, and moral cynicism is an actual term that has a different definition altogether; it means to basically "a person who regularly shows a disregard for moral considerations in the pursuit of his goals, and shows minimal concern for other people's well-being."

Technically, it looks like you're right about "moralism", though it's usually used in a pejorative manner. It would be odd to say, "The man thinks everyone is good at heart. He's very moralistic." Regarding moral cynicism, moral is used as a noun; thus, the phrase describes cynicism regarding morality. Moral can also be used as an adjective (ie. "He is a moral person".) Moralistic is a different word entirely, and an adjective. If it precedes cynicism, it describes making moral judgements about the perceived negative motivations of others.

As for whether the movie was optimistic or pessimistic in its outlook, I guess that's up for the viewer to decide, but most fans and critics consider it to be dark in its view of humanity. This is primarily due to the population's fearful and aggressive reaction to Superman. At a superficial level, the film's use of dark and muted colors create a somber atmosphere.

 

[misslane38]

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.

Your interpretation seems incredibly warped and cynical; it doesn't resonate at all with the context of the film. In fact, if the scene was really about what you say it is, why would it even be in the film?

Why would he be baffled? It's not confusing. He doesn't look at the thing that caused the danger either. His eyes are fixed on the man who saved him as he walks away. The very idea that Clark is doing this job when he could be doing other things suggests he is interested in being with humans, in this case salt of the earth types, that is reminiscent of Jesus with the fisherman in the gospels, which isn't surprising given the writer's and director's penchant for that kind of parallel and how much they are incorporated throughout the film.

Furthermore, when the next scene juxtaposes the one rescue and his faux vulnerability with his own rescue of others on a larger scale where we see his invulnerability, I think the intent is clear. Indeed, as Clark overhears that there is a crisis on the oil rig, he also overhears that the little fishing boat is heading there to help much like the small boats on the English coast headed out to help with the evacuation of Dunkirk.

Again, there's this idea that regular human heroism is inspiring. It's lovely to see that motif replicated with Perry and Steve saving Jenny later, and Hardy, Hamilton, and Lois working on their part of the plan to defeat Zod aboard the military plane. The emphasis here is the partnership of alien and man, how we can help and inspire each other.

 

[misslane38]

He did establish a relationship with Lois, but that's it. I disagree about him expressing genuine joy and happiness when discovering the truth about himself - his facial expressions didn't seem to signify any particular emotion apart from maybe slight confusion and surprise. His emotions seemed blunted throughout the second and final act, until he snapped Zod's neck and screamed in anguish.

He smiles widely when he learns his Kryptonian name, squeals with joy while flying, and then is absolutely glowing while talking it all over with Martha back at the farm. He is smiling and playful talking about what the symbol on his suit means when he's explaining it to Lois. I recommend rewatching the film to get a better appreciation for what actually happened.

As for whether the movie was optimistic or pessimistic in its outlook, I guess that's up for the viewer to decide, but most fans and critics consider it to be dark in its view of humanity. This is primarily due to the population's fearful and aggressive reaction to Superman. At a superficial level, the film's use of dark and muted colors create a somber atmosphere.

The population doesn't have a fearful or aggressive reaction to Superman. They're cautious, like Swanwick and Hardy, but Lois and Emil are quite kind and open-minded. Meanwhile, Swanwick and Hardy don't take long to come around. There's also the fact that people like Pete, Father Leone, and the Kents react with understanding and affection toward Clark when they know he is different. Even if the optimism/cynicism in the film is subjective, and some have a hard time sensing which it is, doesn't change that the film has several lines and actions that don't line up with the interpretation that it's cynical; plus, superficial elements aren't enough to convey something as specific as a moral outlook, especially when the colors are more naturalistic (reminiscent of Terrence Malick's work in, say, Tree of Life, which The Atlantic compared it to once) than muted. The difference here isn't between cynicism and optimism, but realism and fantasy.

 

[lordofthenerds]

He smiles widely when he learns his Kryptonian name, squeals with joy while flying, and then is absolutely glowing while talking it all over with Martha back at the farm. He is smiling and playful talking about what the symbol on his suit means when he's explaining it to Lois. I recommend rewatching the film to get a better appreciation for what actually happened.

Admittedly, I've only watched the film in its entirety three times, the last of which was over a year ago. I didn't hate MOS (roughly, I'd give it a 5/10). If I did rewatch it, it's possible I'd have a greater appreciation for it, but I doubt it. I felt the same about it the first time I viewed it as I did the third.

 

[fan4stic]

He smiles widely when he learns his Kryptonian name, squeals with joy while flying, and then is absolutely glowing while talking it all over with Martha back at the farm. He is smiling and playful talking about what the symbol on his suit means when he's explaining it to Lois. I recommend rewatching the film to get a better appreciation for what actually happened.

It doesn't equal him having a legit personality to me, which is a flaw in the movie to me. The flying scene isn't tonally consistent to me either.

 

[misslane38]

It doesn't equal him having a legit personality to me, which is a flaw in the movie to me. The flying scene isn't tonally consistent to me either.

Define personality. What kind of range is there in personality type? By saying "legit personality," do you mean to say Clark doesn't fall into any category of personality? Try to describe him like you would if you were describing someone you met to a friend?

Finally, the point of the flying scene is to show how important a transformative moment it is by having it have a different vibe. It's the moment, along with the other giffed scenes, after he's finally learned and embraced his Kryptonian heritage. Can you think of reasons or the merits of having tonal shifts in movies to reflect character? Because this is such a moment.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Your interpretation seems incredibly warped and cynical; it doesn't resonate at all with the context of the film. In fact, if the scene was really about what you say it is, why would it even be in the film?

Why would he be baffled? It's not confusing. He doesn't look at the thing that caused the danger either. His eyes are fixed on the man who saved him as he walks away. The very idea that Clark is doing this job when he could be doing other things suggests he is interested in being with humans, in this case salt of the earth types, that is reminiscent of Jesus with the fisherman in the gospels, which isn't surprising given the writer's and director's penchant for that kind of parallel and how much they are incorporated throughout the film.

Furthermore, when the next scene juxtaposes the one rescue and his faux vulnerability with his own rescue of others on a larger scale where we see his invulnerability, I think the intent is clear. Indeed, as Clark overhears that there is a crisis on the oil rig, he also overhears that the little fishing boat is heading there to help much like the small boats on the English coast headed out to help with the evacuation of Dunkirk.

Again, there's this idea that regular human heroism is inspiring. It's lovely to see that motif replicated with Perry and Steve saving Jenny later, and Hardy, Hamilton, and Lois working on their part of the plan to defeat Zod aboard the military plane. The emphasis here is the partnership of alien and man, how we can help and inspire each other.

The point of the scene is to introduce the hero. A newbie sailor can't look for himself and being called "greenhorn" repeatedly. In the following twist the greenhorn is revealed to be a mighty alien, who rescues workers from the oil rig. Greenhorn isn't a greenhorn, surprise. Snyder likes to reference and mirror things. If something falls on somebody in one scene and then again something falls on somebody in another, then these scenes are related. And then you need to sit and connect all this **** while trying to figure out what the author wanted to say (assuming he did). Sure, thematically it fits and referenced many times in the film - mutual help. But those are only thematic references, they're not dramatized. We can't even say for sure what drives those actions, as can be seen by the discussion in this thread. For example, in James Cameron films small objects are being squashed by something big. Symbols are apparent, but they don't make the narrative.

There was myriad of ways how to establish compassion or simply mutual care in that scene, if that's the goal. To make it the focus. The only thing I see there is hypermasculinity and shallow story.

 

[fan4stic]

Define personality. What kind of range is there in personality type? By saying "legit personality," do you mean to say Clark doesn't fall into any category of personality? Try to describe him like you would if you were describing someone you met to a friend?

Heroic and meh. It's like I said before in regards to this character feeling like he's given generalized characteristics to me. Most characters get this in MOS to me. Funny, BvS I feel does better at this. Lois feels more well rounded in her personality there, so does Clark in his few scenes as Clark in the theatrical cut, though not as much when Superman.

Finally, the point of the flying scene is to show how important a transformative moment it is by having it have a different vibe. It's the moment, along with the other giffed scenes, after he's finally learned and embraced his Kryptonian heritage. Can you think of reasons or the merits of having tonal shifts in movies to reflect character? Because this is such a moment.

To me that the tone is off in music and fumble that happens. But him embracing that as a person legitimately doesn't mean much to me. The flying scene only has weight to me in the way you say if we develop him as having a sense loss in his life by being different as a person in being abandoned and a need to seek out where he came from as a person and we never do really to me. We get generalized scenes of his past, but not input into his feelings as a person about being different in being abandoned and wanting to seek out why he was sent to earth. So when he does discover that, it doesn't feel earned to me and it seems to me in a way that the movie knows it because we shuffle right off of the idea that Clark is the only being like him. He doesn't care that his people are dead. We never deal with that sense of loss or his feelings of being the only one of his kind left. This is also why the killing of Zod doesn't fit, that and him being totally cool with it in the next scene. His feelings about being the last son of krypton and how it effects him aren't dealt with so his emotions and idea of choosing earth in killing Zod aren't earned to me.

I know that some want Superman to smile more, but I think that's a generalized statement in regards to the real issue of the movie: That people don't connect with Clark as a person because his emotions as a person aren't developed well or dealt with really to some of them. When he smiles in the movie I think it doesn't feel earned and doesn't resonate with some people, so they don't connect or care that much. That and/or I think the tone of the scene and/or situation doesn't resonate with them. I think a good example of this is the disconnection in the bathtub scene in BvS, where to some, me included, Clark smiling and jumping into the bathtub with a giggling Lois doesn't feel earned by the situation and scene they're in in regards to the conversation they just had or the relationship of Lois/Clark as it's been seen by some of the audience.

 

[unholyrevenger]

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.

You need to re-watch Stas, JL and JLU. The only point Superman is written to be likable is when he's pretending to be Batman otherwise he's not written to be likable. Clark is written to be likable . DCAU Superman has just as much or little personality as DCEU Superman.

Superman doesn't start to become likable until Question confronts him about the Justice Lords possibly being from the future not an alternate reality and whether or not he would go to war with the US government if Luthor became president.

Superman has 3 personality stages across the DCAU
Stick Up his butt
Post Legacy - Borderline Justice Lord
Post Question Confrontation - Stick not so far up his butt

 

[fan4stic]

You need to re-watch Stas, JL and JLU. The only point Superman is written to be likable is when he's pretending to be Batman otherwise he's not written to be likable. Clark is written to be likable . DCAU Superman has just as much or little personality as DCEU Superman.

Clark and Superman are the same person. There's no real direct separation of personalities in the AS. Being serious generally isn't unlikable to me.

Superman doesn't start to become likable until Question confronts him about the Justice Lords possibly being from the future not an alternate reality and whether or not he would go to war with the US government if Luthor became president.

Superman has 3 personality stages across the DCAU
Stick Up his butt
Post Legacy - Borderline Justice Lord
Post Question Confrontation - Stick not so far up his butt

Hereafter to me are episodes where Superman is likable. Those are the episodes that showed me how compelling he can be to me. A Better World is another. The Doomsday Sanction is another. Legacy in Superman the animated series. Apokolips... Now! And For The Man Who Has Everything.

Post Legacy in s1 of JL Superman isn't Justice Lord-ish in any way. Same for s2 of JL. S1's JLU is when he was getting more aggresive in his approach, but he didn't reach anything legit Justice Lord style to me until Clash, with the exception of Twilight in s2 of JL.

 

[Superchan]

So Snyder's Superman isn't likable? Is that what this boils down to? Lol.. There are plenty of fans who would disagree with that! Also, according to Rotten Tomatoes, 75% of the audience enjoyed Man of Steel.

Not plenty enough to stop Snyder's films from being either disappointments or a flop. You (and few others) might think that Snyder's superman is likable but the very majority of people and fans alike thought he was dull as s**t.
Audience score on RT is about reliable as the imdb score i.e. not at all! This is because fanboys log in multiple times under different names to either give a movie a 10 or a 0 depending on their fanatic response to the film, hence why you often see a movie having a score based on 1000s of votes before the movie even comes out. The only reliable score is the RT critics score and MOS failed that one.

 

[Herofan]

He smiles widely when he learns his Kryptonian name, squeals with joy while flying, and then is absolutely glowing while talking it all over with Martha back at the farm. He is smiling and playful talking about what the symbol on his suit means when he's explaining it to Lois. I recommend rewatching the film to get a better appreciation for what actually happened.

Some of those were nice but the latter he seemed a little smug or it just increased the weirdness and implausibility that the S symbol apparently stood for both his family-house name El and hope, hope pretty weird to be used as a surname or family-house name.

Clark and Superman are the same person. There's no real direct separation of personalities in the AS. Being serious generally isn't unlikable to me.Hereafter to me are episodes where Superman is likable. Those are the episodes that showed me how compelling he can be to me. A Better World is another. The Doomsday Sanction is another. Legacy in Superman the animated series.

In the latter to me he did seem pretty jerkish for going off on his own without even telling Supergirl what he was doing (and later after being captured and brainwashed by Darkseid he again went after him on his own), that seemed a bold, at least interesting move for a finale to have its protagonist be so questionable.

 

[eon001]

He smiles widely when he learns his Kryptonian name, squeals with joy while flying, and then is absolutely glowing while talking it all over with Martha back at the farm. He is smiling and playful talking about what the symbol on his suit means when he's explaining it to Lois. I recommend rewatching the film to get a better appreciation for what actually happened.

These examples are too few and far between. The fact that we have to actually got back into the film and do a CSI investigation to try and find these brief moments of joy and happines kinda say says it all. I'm a MoS fan, but I can't ignore it's flaws.

I feel more moments like the opening of Justice League is what Superman needs going forward. (Ignore the lipt
[YT]o8XfBEKFfUU[/YT]
Lets see his relationship with people and how much joy and security he brings them.

All that "The world misses Superman" stuff felt unearned.

 

[misslane38]

Some of those were nice but the latter he seemed a little smug or it just increased the weirdness and implausibility that the S symbol apparently stood for both his family-house name El and hope, hope pretty weird to be used as a surname or family-house name.

I don't get smugness at all. Not one bit. The symbol represents the House of El, like a coat of arms, which means it's not like letters of the alphabet formed into a word; it's not used to denote a surname.

These examples are too few and far between. The fact that we have to actually got back into the film and do a CSI investigation to try and find these brief moments of joy and happines kinda say says it all. I'm a MoS fan, but I can't ignore it's flaws.

You need to pay closer attention to the conversations you jump into. I used those as examples to show how Clark's personality changed once he learned about his Kryptonian heritage in order to counter the claim that he didn't express any "genuine joy and happiness when discovering the truth about himself."

I feel more moments like the opening of Justice League is what Superman needs going forward. (Ignore the lipt

Spare me. I don't mind and welcome more scenes with the public, but not anything like this. The way it was written and shot doesn't work for me at all.

 

[eon001]

You need to pay closer attention to the conversations you jump into. I used those as examples to show how Clark's personality changed once he learned about his Kryptonian heritage in order to counter the claim that he didn't express any "genuine joy and happiness when discovering the truth about himself."

TLDR. Thanks for the context though.

He certainly did show joy in those moments. Wish we had more of them though.