Why has WB struggled with Superman on the big screen?

[Osiris-Rex]

No, they actually are not employees. That is not what the work "employee" means at all.

British director Alfred Hitchcock, who had a string of very successful movies in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, once likened actors to cattle. "All actors should be treated like cattle"
In film the camera tells the story, and the actor must fit in with the aesthetic of the production. In some films, actors are so unimportant as to become just another visual element, or the background.
You must herd actors like cattle to get them in just the right placement in the frame, or with just the right expression for the reaction shot. In many scenes, an actor's creeping shadow on the wall is
what builds the suspense-- you have to herd them into place so the shot looks just right.

Basically would you let the cow tell you how to grill a steak?

[mrbrklyn]

British director Alfred Hitchcock, who had a string of very successful movies in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, once likened actors to cattle. "All actors should be treated like cattle"
In film the camera tells the story, and the actor must fit in with the aesthetic of the production. In some films, actors are so unimportant as to become just another visual element, or the background.
You must herd actors like cattle to get them in just the right placement in the frame, or with just the right expression for the reaction shot. In many scenes, an actor's creeping shadow on the wall is
what builds the suspense-- you have to herd them into place so the shot looks just right.

Basically would you let the cow tell you how to grill a steak?

Not the one on the grill. If it gives you a suggestion, stab it until it stops.

[DochaDocha]

British director Alfred Hitchcock, who had a string of very successful movies in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, once likened actors to cattle. "All actors should be treated like cattle"
In film the camera tells the story, and the actor must fit in with the aesthetic of the production. In some films, actors are so unimportant as to become just another visual element, or the background.
You must herd actors like cattle to get them in just the right placement in the frame, or with just the right expression for the reaction shot. In many scenes, an actor's creeping shadow on the wall is
what builds the suspense-- you have to herd them into place so the shot looks just right.

Basically would you let the cow tell you how to grill a steak?

Acting is kind of strange, specifically Hollywood acting. On the one hand, I don't think the gap in acting is so large that Hollywood's best actor is so much better than its 17th best actor that you'd get a lot worse of a movie if you swapped them. It's not like replacing LeBron James with an ordinary All-Star such as Demar Derozan. So in a sense, you'd figure that actors are sort of like cattle, and as such, they wouldn't be able to negotiate as much salary as they do because an actor as capable as he could do the same job for less. But, since people are drawn to "personality," you have to pay guys like the Rock $20 million per movie, or else get another guy who might not draw a crowd.

Still, even if talent were so replaceable, moviemaking knowledge is not exclusive to directors and such. A seasoned actor can provide input and feedback on how to make a scene work better. I don't think Henry necessarily brings moviemaking skills to the table, but nobody behind the camera is bringing Superman story-making skills to the table, either. Plus, I've seen enough garbage from guys who write Superman for a paycheck instead of out of passion for the character, so if Henry loves Supes as much as he lets on, I find his input to be no worse than whoever else's has been responsible for this DCEU.

[Carabas]

British director Alfred Hitchcock, who had a string of very successful movies in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, once likened actors to cattle. "All actors should be treated like cattle"
In film the camera tells the story, and the actor must fit in with the aesthetic of the production. In some films, actors are so unimportant as to become just another visual element, or the background.
You must herd actors like cattle to get them in just the right placement in the frame, or with just the right expression for the reaction shot. In many scenes, an actor's creeping shadow on the wall is
what builds the suspense-- you have to herd them into place so the shot looks just right.

Basically would you let the cow tell you how to grill a steak?

Alfred Hitchcock was an abusive tyrant on set, and not somebody whose opinions on how one should treat actors are worth the air they're spoken with.

[Last Son of Krypton]

He goes to comicbook shops to buy Superman comics because he cares and wants to learn more.

Probably Henry is currently selling on E-bay all the comics he bought. What a waste of money that turned out.

[JAK]

British director Alfred Hitchcock, who had a string of very successful movies in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, once likened actors to cattle. "All actors should be treated like cattle"
In film the camera tells the story, and the actor must fit in with the aesthetic of the production. In some films, actors are so unimportant as to become just another visual element, or the background.
You must herd actors like cattle to get them in just the right placement in the frame, or with just the right expression for the reaction shot. In many scenes, an actor's creeping shadow on the wall is
what builds the suspense-- you have to herd them into place so the shot looks just right.

Basically would you let the cow tell you how to grill a steak?

I wouldn't pick Hitchcock as your example, he was...

Alfred Hitchcock was an abusive tyrant on set, and not somebody whose opinions on how one should treat actors are worth the air they're spoken with.

Carabas beat me to it. Tippi Hedren has talked about Hitchcock's fascination with her, and the way he subsequently tortured her on set when she rejected him - and THEN he set out to kill her reputation and deny her work from anyone else, which he did. A great filmmaker, but a complete monster.

The man was the Harvey Weinstein of his day.

Still, even if talent were so replaceable, moviemaking knowledge is not exclusive to directors and such. A seasoned actor can provide input and feedback on how to make a scene work better. I don't think Henry necessarily brings moviemaking skills to the table, but nobody behind the camera is bringing Superman story-making skills to the table, either. Plus, I've seen enough garbage from guys who write Superman for a paycheck instead of out of passion for the character, so if Henry loves Supes as much as he lets on, I find his input to be no worse than whoever else's has been responsible for this DCEU.

Exactly. And a good number of actors take a turn behind the camera and do decently well. They don't all do well, but it's worth noting that the movie business isn't some magic science. WB clearly don't know much more about it than we do, or they'd be making better movies. What they *do* know about that we don't is how to bankroll a bad movie and make it work for them financially. But that is absolutely *not* the same thing.

There are also a million different directors/etc in Hollywood. And we hold them higher-up.......why, exactly?

[Miles To Go]

Probably Henry is currently selling on E-bay all the comics he bought. What a waste of money that turned out.

Bet he sold the Death of Superman collection first

"You realise this is all your fault"

[Last Son of Krypton]

Bet he sold the Death of Superman collection first

"You realise this is all your fault"

Nah, he sold Miller's TDKR first if he hasn't already ripped/burned his copy.

[JAK]

Nah, he sold Miller's TDKR first if he hasn't already ripped/burned his copy.

Pretty much... lol

[stargazer01]

Probably Henry is currently selling on E-bay all the comics he bought. What a waste of money that turned out.

Except 'For Tomorrow'




When Henry and Superman trended ww at #1 and 2.

Dm6LCRwXoAA1nNq.jpg

[Last Son of Krypton]

Except 'For Tomorrow'

Perhaps but I'm sure he blames For Tomorrow for the moustache fiasco: https://comicbook.com/dc/2018/07/12/...erman-villain/

[Robotman]

Why have they struggled? Because so many people overthink and underestimate the character! The concept of Superman is beautiful. A being with godlike powers who chooses to help humanity because it’s rhe right thing to do. Not because the character is motivated by revenge or rage or religious obligation. Help because you have the power to help. Not only is the core concept great but Supes has a good rogues gallery. But of course most iterations don’t get past Luthor, Zod, and Doomsday. Jeezus, we haven’t ever seen Brainiac on the big screen. Hollywood doesn’t think audiences will accept a character who is truly good and moral? Marvel is doing just fine with Captain America.
I read an article recently that stated the next actor to play Superman needs to be older because Superman needs to show wisdom and maturity that a younger actor just can’t achieve. Again, totally overthinking it.

Cavill is great. Just get people who love Superman to write and direct. Mario Puzo was a Superman fan. You can tell how much he loved the character by his script for Superman: The Movie.

[DochaDocha]

Hollywood doesn’t think audiences will accept a character who is truly good and moral? Marvel is doing just fine with Captain America.

To be fair, there's usually two complaints about Superman being "too" of something:

1) Too morally wholesome
2) Too powerful

There really aren't a lot of characters who embody this. The heavy hitters include characters such as Thor, Hulk, and WW, and so far nobody comes close to Supes' power level. When you look at the wholesome aspect, Thor was too cocky and kills (how dare!) his enemies, and Hulk is Hulk. WW in her movie is morally superior to her peers, but nobody would accuse her of being a [insert your gender here]scout.

[HeroVladimir93]

Why have they struggled? Because so many people overthink and underestimate the character! The concept of Superman is beautiful. A being with godlike powers who chooses to help humanity because it’s rhe right thing to do. Not because the character is motivated by revenge or rage or religious obligation. Help because you have the power to help. Not only is the core concept great but Supes has a good rogues gallery. But of course most iterations don’t get past Luthor, Zod, and Doomsday. Jeezus, we haven’t ever seen Brainiac on the big screen. Hollywood doesn’t think audiences will accept a character who is truly good and moral? Marvel is doing just fine with Captain America.
I read an article recently that stated the next actor to play Superman needs to be older because Superman needs to show wisdom and maturity that a younger actor just can’t achieve. Again, totally overthinking it.

Cavill is great. Just get people who love Superman to write and direct. Mario Puzo was a Superman fan. You can tell how much he loved the character by his script for Superman: The Movie.

This is why I still hope that Henry can play Superman again. He understands Superman, he knows what Superman stands for, he acts like Superman in real life. In anyone is worthy to be the big screen's Superman, it's him.

To be fair, there's usually two complaints about Superman being "too" of something:

1) Too morally wholesome
2) Too powerful

There really aren't a lot of characters who embody this. The heavy hitters include characters such as Thor, Hulk, and WW, and so far nobody comes close to Supes' power level. When you look at the wholesome aspect, Thor was too cocky and kills (how dare!) his enemies, and Hulk is Hulk. WW in her movie is morally superior to her peers, but nobody would accuse her of being a [insert your gender here]scout.

Thor is a warrior by nature, Hulk wants to be left alone and Captain America can be too political at times. Superman has to transcend warrior culture, uncontrolled rage and sociopolitical discussions to become a hero for the entire world. He isn't the prince of an ancient culture or a soldier out of time, he is simply a man wants to do the right thing. Warner can make a good movie about that. Superman has a complex and nuanced nature that is tricky to pull off, but not impossible. Just look at the DCAU, All-Star Superman, Geoff Johns' stories or Rebirth. I'm even enjoying what Bendis is doing right now in the comic books. Superman is my favorite literary character and I can hope he can fly in the big screen again.

[SiegePerilous02]

I wonder if part of the solution to the "too powerful" complaints would be to actually bring some of the crazier elements of the Super mythos to screen. Yeah Superman is the most powerful superhero...but his world is full of foes and locations that are just as crazy or crazier than he is, so it kind of works. He's be just like Cap, but his adventures would be scaled much differently. Which should be what they do anyway.

They showed some of the spectacle with the Phantom Zone criminals, but that's so far all they seem willing to do. Brainiac has never made it to screen, and may only make it against Supergirl. Foes like Myx, Solaris, the intergalactic and potentially limitless Superman Revenge Squad, etc could all make for a wider variety of plots and threats. If they have issues with Superman overcoming the villains, they probably need a different genre because the heroes always win in the end. Superman's no different in that regard, it just takes bigger things to challenge him.