Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[Skrilla31]

Here in the USA, the police are very much becoming a symbol of the right. Morrison, by the way, is specifically referring to the paternalistic and ally of the state Frank Miller portrayed Superman as in The Dark Knight Returns. Superman became popular in the 1930s when he was portrayed as an aggressive, anti-fascist, anti-establishment, anti-corporate populist.

I'm sorry I didn't see any reference to TDKR in that quote.



Superman was a fascist himself wasn't he? In his very first solo issue doesn't he force two opposing world leaders to make peace with one another?


I don't think it serves anyone to assign political affiliation to Superman. Above all he stands for truth and justice, so portraying him as a police figure makes sense.

 

[misslane38]

I'm sorry I didn't see any reference to TDKR in that quote.

I'll type it up to make it super clear, then.

"Frank Miller positioned Superman very much as a Republican figure. He was working with Ronald Reagan, and he was absolutely in the pay of the American government in The Dark Knight Returns. But in the movie we're seeing a Superman who is not on anyone's "side," and it's Batman who seems to be the figure of "old money" and the idea of being the rich man with all of the weapons who stands for America itself, and suddenly Superman is the outlaw."

Superman was a fascist himself wasn't he? In his very first solo issue doesn't he force two opposing world leaders to make peace with one another?

No, he wasn't. He is very specifically defying institutionalized power in every form. Also, as a side note, in the first Donner film, it's interesting how his approach is contextualized using Lois' response:

Source: http://justiceleague.tumblr.com/post/153436449756

I don't think it serves anyone to assign political affiliation to Superman. Above all he stands for truth and justice, so portraying him as a police figure makes sense.

No, it doesn't. The police are not politically neutral. They are an arm of the state and have a legacy in the USA of supporting racism, corruption, and abuse.

 

[Mandon Knight]

He's not under anyone's jurisdiction or control himself and neither does he hold sway with anyone right or left in the political system, just that truth, honour and justice are upheld. Is that not his 'way' (without being a way of course). As badly handled in Quest for Peace as it was, wasn't that some of the point with his 'lack' of wishing to engage with the U.N. on nuclear disarmament, he is placed upon the Earth as a guardian of it, rather than a chosen leader, to which he can dictate the operandi.

 

[Skrilla31]

No, he wasn't. He is very specifically defying institutionalized power in every form.


In the very first issue of Superman, he forces two world leaders to make peace against their will. That is the definition of fascism.



No, it doesn't. The police are not politically neutral. They are an arm of the state and have a legacy in the USA of supporting racism, corruption, and abuse.


People of all occupations and political affiliations take part in racism, corruption and abuse.

Bolded

 

[misslane38]

Bolded

Neither of those things is fascism. Fascism is specifically state sponsored. It is institutionalized power.

 

[Skrilla31]

Neither of those things is fascism. Fascism is specifically state sponsored. It is institutionalized power.

How is Superman imposing his own ideals on the countries of Earth any different than a dictatorship?

 

[misslane38]

How is Superman imposing his own ideals on the countries of Earth any different than a dictatorship?

It's a fine distinction, but it's there. He isn't creating an actual nation state with codified laws or cult of personality. It's not like Injustice: Gods Among Us, for example. By forcing people to make peace, he is not picking a side; his side is peace. Then, in those instances where he does fight Nazis, or fascists, in early comics, he is essentially just taking on aggressors who were invading countries and murdering innocent people just as Britain and America did when they helped liberate Europe.

Perhaps if he was able to fight them without using force or without the non-fictional leadership and readership of the time finding in him a kind of propaganda tool there would be less of an impulse to see in him something that is strictly fascist. Nonetheless, ultimately I feel like it's a bit much to label Golden Age Superman as a fascist. And, to go back to Morrison, he was specifically talking about the difference between BvS Superman and TDKR Superman. In TDKR, Superman is a tool of the Reagan administration.

 

[Skrilla31]

It's a fine distinction, but it's there. He isn't creating an actual nation state with codified laws or cult of personality. It's not like Injustice: Gods Among Us, for example. By forcing people to make peace, he is not picking a side; his side is peace. Then, in those instances where he does fight Nazis, or fascists, in early comics, he is essentially just taking on aggressors who were invading countries and murdering innocent people just as Britain and America did when they helped liberate Europe.

Perhaps if he was able to fight them without using force or without the non-fictional leadership and readership of the time finding in him a kind of propaganda tool there would be less of an impulse to see in him something that is strictly fascist. Nonetheless, ultimately I feel like it's a bit much to label Golden Age Superman as a fascist. And, to go back to Morrison, he was specifically talking about the difference between BvS Superman and TDKR Superman. In TDKR, Superman is a tool of the Reagan administration.

True peace can only occur through war or through diplomacy. If it is mandated by an all powerful government or in this instance an all powerful alien dictator, then that is fascism.


Superman forbidding people from acting out in conflict is stripping them of a basic human right, isn't it?

 

[Lantern Venom]

I think most people basically sense that Superman is pretty much an establishment figure, fatherlike or at least like a policeman.

That's really not how Siegel & Shuster conceived him. They saw the ugly side of the world both personally and professionally. Even though Superman was a noble figure from the start, he was also an outsider. He was much more reactionary and hotheaded than the Adventures of Superman/Donner/Super Friends versions.

He didn't mind destroying property, intimidating people, or even getting a little rough to get his point across:

http://fandom.wikia.com/articles/grandpas-superman-jerk

That's why I think the DCEU started in the correct place with the character. At the start, Superman should be a character of controversy due to the human mistrust of those who are different. If he becomes the father figure/overseer type, that should happen when the world has become familiar with him over a long period of time.

 

[flickchick85]

The "establishment figure" image of Supes is more Silver/Bronze age than anything, imo.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Why is it so hard ? Essentially, because the ideals he stands for and upholds are not considered 'cool' anymore, they are considered 'boring and outdated' in this new tech world we live in.

The values that are at his core and deemed not to be 'relevant' or 'required' by society at large.

Yes, they exist today, of course they do, but the act of selfless giving, willing to put one's life down or own hold for somebody else are not considered part of human structure, we live in a 'self' driven age by self driven technology, where good values take 'too much of people's time' and 'I haven't got time for that', there are few times of virtue, honesty and placing other's needs before one's own wishes.

It saddens me greatly, this is where we are.

It is hard because these acts are buried in society, they happen every day but are rarely reported or written about.

You can see that Henry wishes to project those values, he has them within him.

He knows what he wants the character to be and be represented as and deserves that opportunity.

 

[blackdragon6]

The Punisher is probably more relatable to certain segments of America than vintage Superman tbh.

 

[Skrilla31]

The Punisher is probably more relatable to certain segments of America than vintage Superman tbh.

What does this even mean? How is Superman not relatable?


Middle american dude with humble background, raised by two loving parents, works two jobs, has crush on co-worker, has difficulty juggling his personal and professional life.



Doesn't get any more human than that.

 

[Madam-Shogun]

What does this even mean? How is Superman not relatable?


Middle american dude with humble background, raised by two loving parents, works two jobs, has crush on co-worker, has difficulty juggling his personal and professional life.



Doesn't get any more human than that.

It's not his upbringing, it's his ideology. Seigle and Schuster's Superman would be called a violent radical left wing thug. "Antifa!". The Punisher is a wet dream for half of America and he's not some kind of freak of nature or science. If the Punisher were real the Republicans would try to get him to run for Congress.

 

[Nemeres]

I don’t think it’s as hard as all that. I would put it down to execution more than premise. A semi-sequel to the Donner films w a modern sensibility wasn’t necessarily a bad idea. Focusing on Superman’s struggle for acceptance isn’t either.

There are common elements in both Singer and Snyder’s takes that strongly condition the reading of those films for me. Both guys tried hard to make him vulnerable so as to counteract the difficulty to relate to him. Nothing wrong with that. He’s doubtful, ok, and he’s lonely, ok, and they ground him in a “real world” where he’d be faced with rejection. With Superman, though, the fact that he’s so powerful creates a set of expectations if you want people to hit that next stage of personal investment… and you can’t afford to have a guy THAT powerful be THAT reliant on pity. He ends up presented as a constant victim, but I think people just naturally expect more from a character who is that built up. And they tune out easily if he doesn’t become more. In SR, the goons pummel him while he crawls pathetically on the floor. In MOS, he can’t even confront the truck driver like a normally assertive non-violent person. In BVS, they accuse him of sh-- at every turn. There’s usually a combo of moments of rejection later complemented by moments of messiah-like sacrifice, and it’s like constantly asking people to FEEL BAD about judging Supes or not appreciating the character enough. And there’s something to be said about that, but the pity approach works until it doesn’t.

Making him less of a reacter and more of a do-er seems to me like an untapped source of character investment. In every version there’s always the hint that he’ll lead mankind towards some sort of betterment, usually in the form of Jor-El quotes, and there’s a whole set of plot ideas to be developed with that in mind. Pretty thrilling to think about if you wanna go there.

 

[misslane38]

In MOS, he can’t even confront the truck driver like a normally assertive non-violent person.

Clark did that because Chrissy asked him to stop. As a woman, that response earns my respect not my pity.

In BVS, they accuse him of sh-- at every turn. There’s usually a combo of moments of rejection later complemented by moments of messiah-like sacrifice, and it’s like constantly asking people to FEEL BAD about judging Supes or not appreciating the character enough. And there’s something to be said about that, but the pity approach works until it doesn’t.

It doesn't make me pity Superman. It makes me pity humanity.

Making him less of a reacter and more of a do-er seems to me like an untapped source of character investment. In every version there’s always the hint that he’ll lead mankind towards some sort of betterment, usually in the form of Jor-El quotes, and there’s a whole set of plot ideas to be developed with that in mind. Pretty thrilling to think about if you wanna go there.

Making him more of a doer rather than a reactor is what got Superman in trouble in Nairomi. As a doer, Superman has to make his choices very carefully. He has to figure out what kind of power is the best kind of power to create the change he wishes to see. We see him working that out in BvS with his Batman crusade.

 

[Nemeres]

Making him more of a doer rather than a reactor is what got Superman in trouble in Nairomi. As a doer, Superman has to make his choices very carefully. He has to figure out what kind of power is the best kind of power to create the change he wishes to see. We see him working that out in BvS with his Batman crusade.

That's an example of what I don't mean. His main reason to fly to Africa is Lois being in danger and everything that happens afterwards stems from that. It's unclear whether he would've still interfered if there hadn't been a personal stake, but this is the only politically iffy situation they ever mention, so one can assume he hasn't interfered before. Incidentally, I would've actually really dug a plotline of Superman defying sensible politics and intervening out of the desire to do the “right” thing for a collective. Here he's mostly reacting to Lois's decision to venture out for an interview, and she's the only person he ends up saving.

Clark did that because Chrissy asked him to stop. As a woman, that response earns my respect not my pity.

Once he pours the beer on his head, it stops being about Chrissy. He leaves humiliated, but dealing with the situation differently is never really presented as an option, even though it's a perfectly feasible one, for him of all people. Because the film needs the pity. I don't wanna begrudge MOS one of its cool power fantasy moments too much and what I'm suggesting is certainly less cinematic, so I'll leave it there.

 

[2kt09]

That's an example of what I don't mean. His main reason to fly to Africa is Lois being in danger and everything that happens afterwards stems from that. It's unclear whether he would've still interfered if there hadn't been a personal stake, but this is the only politically iffy situation they ever mention, so one can assume he hasn't interfered before. Incidentally, I would've actually really dug a plotline of Superman defying sensible politics and intervening out of the desire to do the “right” thing for a collective. Here he's mostly reacting to Lois's decision to venture out for an interview, and she's the only person he ends up saving.

I think that's supposed to tie into why he becomes focused on Batman. As Superman, he isn't ever actively shown to confront crime. He chooses not to be that kind of first responder, even though he's more than well equipped to do what WW, Batman, and Flash do.

 

[misslane38]

That's an example of what I don't mean. His main reason to fly to Africa is Lois being in danger and everything that happens afterwards stems from that. It's unclear whether he would've still interfered if there hadn't been a personal stake, but this is the only politically iffy situation they ever mention, so one can assume he hasn't interfered before. Incidentally, I would've actually really dug a plotline of Superman defying sensible politics and intervening out of the desire to do the “right” thing for a collective. Here he's mostly reacting to Lois's decision to venture out for an interview, and she's the only person he ends up saving.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that he took action in Nairomi. I'm saying that it, or more accurately the perception of it, revealed the dangers and limits of a Superman who would potentially do what Luthor made it look like he did. So, to clarify, I didn't mean that the situation was evidence of Superman being a "doer," but rather the situation and how it evolved was an illustration of why being a "doer" in the way the Nairomi incident was perceived as -- and the way you're proposing as a way Superman should operate an an interventionist -- is not a prudent course of action.

Once he pours the beer on his head, it stops being about Chrissy. He leaves humiliated, but dealing with the situation differently is never really presented as an option, even though it's a perfectly feasible one, for him of all people. Because the film needs the pity. I don't wanna begrudge MOS one of its cool power fantasy moments too much and what I'm suggesting is certainly less cinematic, so I'll leave it there.

Nope. It never stops being about Chrissy, because Chrissy doesn't want Clark to engage with Ludlow. Clark is respecting her wishes. You're assuming Clark leaves humiliated, because you're assuming that Clark cares what Ludlow thinks. He doesn't. Clark gets to leave knowing that he's protected and respected Chrissy, and he gets to put Ludlow in his place by messing with his truck. It's more or less an amalgam of Action Comics #1 where Butch harasses Lois, and Clark has to not engage, and the scene in Superman II at the diner where the guy is a jerk and later he beats him up. The bottom line is that that scene gives us a Superman who stands up against sexual harassment and doesn't care about his own ego and does what Jonathan talks about when he speaks about a man who doesn't get physically violent to feel better as a man of good character. As a Superman fan and a woman, I watched that scene and felt no pity for Clark. I felt admiration.

 

[Skrilla31]

It's not his upbringing, it's his ideology. Seigle and Schuster's Superman would be called a violent radical left wing thug. "Antifa!". The Punisher is a wet dream for half of America and he's not some kind of freak of nature or science. If the Punisher were real the Republicans would try to get him to run for Congress.

Okay but if Punisher had Superman's powers it would be the same thing. Those that are for, those that are against.

 

[Skrilla31]

Incidentally, I would've actually really dug a plotline of Superman defying sensible politics and intervening out of the desire to do the “right” thing for a collective

Well as a 'collective' we don't particularly agree on everything so the moment Superman intervenes he's bound to make enemies of the people whose rights he is infringing upon.



Also what are Superman's values? We can't just say "he's on the side of peace" and call it a day because it's not that simple. What are his social and economic views? What are his views on religion? Superman was raised in America but does he believe in western values? What is Superman's ideal form of government?


What would Superman do about places like N. Korea and some of the more extreme Muslim countries in the Middle East? What would he do about places like Mexico? Would "doing what's right" give him license to go into these countries and remove people from power?



Not so simple.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Why is it so hard ? Essentially, because the ideals he stands for and upholds are not considered 'cool' anymore, they are considered 'boring and outdated' in this new tech world we live in.

Yet Captain America is more popular than he's ever been.

 

[The Joker]

Yet Captain America is more popular than he's ever been.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Pennywise]

Yet Captain America is more popular than he's ever been.

Very true!

 

[Nemeres]

Not so simple.

That's exactly the point. He doesn't need to be portrayed as being in the right of it. He can be wrong, he can be naïve. It's a solid hook bc it taps into the power fantasy of wishing you could take action against humanitarian crises, if only you had the power. Superman does, so does he just stand by? I like the idea of a Supes forced to weigh sensible diplomacy against human life. He'd spearhead initiatives and use his influence to affect policy, like in Peace on Earth, but if push came to shove, he'd interfere if it meant saving one innocent. Of course that'd open a can of worms, that's the fun of it. It's enough conflict for one movie and then some.