Why does Clark have more success on the small screen instead of the big screen?

[QUOTE=Revolutionary_Jack;4693381]IN animation you had Bruce Timm's Superman the Animated Series which was a great show but seems to not get as much press as BTAS.

There hasn't been a Superman cartoon since then, I mean think about that since the '90s, there's not been a single Superman cartoon.[/QUOTE]

There was Superman and the Legion of Super-Heroes which was amazing in my opinion. I was really happy to have Bruce Timm's Superman the Animated Series, but I really didn't like the direction they took the character and found myself frustrated with it more often than not. I was happy to be getting any Superman at all though.

[QUOTE=manwhohaseverything;4694954]how is that fair? donner's superman wasn't precrisis version.he left his mark.why shouldn't others try as well.Man of steel didn't do that at all.it was basically an amalgamated mess.[/QUOTE]

I don't have a problem with it all the time - but often there's this Hollywood obsession with "leaving a mark" for it's own sake, with no clear vision or direction. And I have absolutely no love for that. I'd say the failed "Superman Lives" movie would be my exhibit A of what happens when that's the approach.

[QUOTE=JAK;4696124]I don't have a problem with it all the time - but often there's this Hollywood obsession with "leaving a mark" for it's own sake, with no clear vision or direction. And I have absolutely no love for that. I'd say the failed "Superman Lives" movie would be my exhibit A of what happens when that's the approach.[/QUOTE]

I don't have any interest in a boardroom made flick, I want a vision and personality.

SUPERMAN LIVES might not have been Superman for me, but I'd prolly enjoy watching it over SUPERMAN RETURNS or JUSTICE LEAGUE.

[QUOTE=magha_regulus;4696071]The problem solely rests on Warner Brothers. A lack of creative vision and artistry due to a love of profits above all else. [B]Let the creatives at DC comics have control over the creative direction of the movies.[/B] Follow the lead of people who actually know and love the character and have actual experience with him.[/QUOTE]

The creatives of DC Comics aren't any better or less profit driven than their film counterparts. Do I need to talk about all the crappy comic stories we have gotten and are still getting today?

I think the issue is that the film writers try to make things TOO epic. They feel they have to make it dramatic and exciting and go off the deep end.

[QUOTE=Flash Gordon;4696318]I don't have any interest in a boardroom made flick, I want a vision and personality.

SUPERMAN LIVES might not have been Superman for me, but I'd prolly enjoy watching it over SUPERMAN RETURNS or JUSTICE LEAGUE.[/QUOTE]
I can get behind this and support it. The reason donner's revision and additions worked was because he had the vision that was appealing.Not because he was straight up precrisis guy.

[QUOTE=Flash Gordon;4696318]I don't have any interest in a boardroom made flick, I want a vision and personality.

SUPERMAN LIVES might not have been Superman for me, but I'd prolly enjoy watching it over SUPERMAN RETURNS or JUSTICE LEAGUE.[/QUOTE]

I don't, either. But that's the other ditch. I see them both as equally bad.

[QUOTE=marhawkman;4696395]I think the issue is that the film writers try to make things TOO epic. They feel they have to make it dramatic and exciting and go off the deep end.[/QUOTE]

There's a bit of that. I'd like to see movies scale back a bit - kinda like how video games have to focus on story and/or controls because "better graphics" doesn't instantly sell a game anymore.

I don't think it's a coincidence Superman's previous success on the big screen was when WB was just distributing them for theater exhibition. The fact the closest thing they have for a somewhat solid hit was Man of Steel is very telling. Superman literally is the foundation DC Comics and Superheroes are built on,and the fact Warner Bros. Who own him can't seem to get him right for a large amount of the general audience who want to like him is perplexing. It's probably because Warner's has been in love with Batman since 1989 and that love affair is far from over. Given that the last three Batman related movies sans connections to other outside Superhero characters have done a billion each (The Dark Knight,The Dark Knight Rises and Joker) it's not hard to see why. Batman and Batman franchises are license to print money. For whatever reason,Superman hasn't reached that level of popularity on the big screen.

I think there is something to the small screen illerations doing better because they are farther removed from Warner's direct influence.

[QUOTE=manofsteel1979;4696590]I think there is something to the small screen illerations doing better because they are farther removed from Warner's direct influence.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. A TV adaptation's main goal is to avoid going out with Season 1, so they have to find ways to get viewers engaged and not just assume they have a sure hit on hands, so they pay attention to casting, ensemble chemistry and character arcs and development.

A superhero movie has far more scrutiny with execs and others. So their approach is either too conservative or not conservative enough. They were too conservative with [I]Superman Returns[/I] which is a sequel to movies more than 20 years ago that most audiences it was targeted to hadn't seen and featured a take on the character that seemed really dated and so on. Then you have Zack Snyder's take where they were not conservative enough and they let Zack Snyder run roughshod over the entire concept and story, making him almost unrecognizable and then undermining him further with a sequel where Batman is the main character.

The way to do Superman is simply...make him work as a character. Don't go in with Superman the Icon, Superman the Treasure, Superman the First Superhero. All that is true only because first and foremost Superman worked as a character. The movies have put the cart before the horse so far.

Small screen shows also do better because they shoot for smaller audiences. DCEU movies were made to be mega blockbusters, and the Superman ones failed to hit this mark. Any time you put a show on CW, you already concede that you're restricting yourself to a much smaller market. The advantage of that, of course, is that you can focus on what you do best, and what your audience likes, instead of trying to cast a net that catches everyone.

I would interject that TV has it's risks too. Look at the recent row with Batwoman's ratings and the decline in Supergirl's ratings over the years.

[IMG]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/List_of_Supergirl_episodes/0/ae016a4d367c23ccb37539f367f753276628463e.png[/IMG]


It's not a pretty picture. If Supergirl was presented as it is now to a theatrical release, it would do poorly financially. Supergirl does smaller stories, uses most of Superman's well known tales and villains, skews closer to the Donner-interpretation and present a progressive message in it's delivery. People aren't going in for it, the same way they do for Arrow and Flash. I think Flash is still the number 1 CW comic show. Even with it's dodgy 4th and 5th seasons.


Can't fault creators for shooting for the moon. Superman Returns played it safe with a shot for shot, line for line remake of Superman TM. Certified fresh on RT. In an age pre-MCU and when Rami's Spider-Man and X-Men were [B]THE[/B] comic book movie standards. Nobody cared about SR then. If SR was released in this post-MCU age now, it would be similarly ignored and lambasted.


Look at other IPs for example. Star Trek came back in 2009 to financial and critical acclaim. Produced 3 movies certified fresh by RT and the movie division is on indefinite hiatus. Due to poor reception and sales during it's 50th anniversary year.
Star Wars came back in 2015, did gangbusters at the BO. All movies (even Solo) rated fresh at RT. Star Wars is also going on indefinite hiatus due to poor reception and sales.


You could do everything right, be adored and propped up by the critics and still be shelved. The temptation is to be bold or go home.


For better or for worse, the DCEU movies do have the public's interest. Release of frequent crowd pleasers like the MCU movies would be a fast way to win the audience and the media sites over.

Oddly enough Superman Returns made more money than Batman Begins. But it didn’t make [B]enough[/B] for WB and it was saddled with the bull**** expectation of recouping ALL the expenses of the past failed Superman movies which was just ridiculous.

I should've specified that aiming for CW is conceding to have a modest TV audience. Moving Supergirl from CBS to CW dropped the ratings from 6 million per episode to 2 million. You just aren't going to get the same exposure, but on the same note, you don't have to hit all of those milestones to justify your slot on a more mainstream network.

I mean I don’t think anyone can argue that WB clearly views Superman as a B-List character after the failure of the DCEU lol.

[QUOTE=Vordan;4696882]I mean I don’t think anyone can argue that WB clearly views Superman as a B-List character after the failure of the DCEU lol.[/QUOTE]

Mark Waid will have you believe it's been going for some time since the '80s or so with WB and DC's management not giving Superman as much as Batman, albeit Supes still got more than other DC characters.

Bruce Timm and the DCAU really did do a lot of work with Superman in the '90s and it was an influential show, I mean Lois Lane in the comics after that cartoon came out started wearing purple and calling Clark Smallville and so on.

It might be that WB treats Superman like how Disney handles Mickey Mouse. Keep him as a mascot because merch and branding still sell but otherwise don't rock the boat. In Disney's classic cartoons, Donald is the guy who shows up most often and makes more money consistently rather than Mickey.