Why has WB struggled with Superman on the big screen?

[Agent Z]

Because MoS spent way too much time on them.

They really did not. There are fight scenes that lasted longer.

Brooding and moping do though.

He only does for three scenes at most in BvS. Donner’s Lex being campy doesn’t mean Snyder’s Lex was somehow good.
Snyder's Lex is the only movie Luthor to figure out Superman's plan and has come far closer to killing him almost any other version.

Why did we get a Lex who feeds people jolly ranchers and pisses in jars? Those things aren’t cool or badass they’re stupid.

They also are not the only things he does and other villains have far more stupid moments.

Our current situation is born of Snyder. Of course we’re talking about him. It’s not JUST his fault of course, WB deserves plenty of blame, but we are where we are right now in part because of the choices Snyder made.

No our current situation is born of WB rushing out a DC movie universe, over reacting to criticisms, carving up movies and struggling to keep actors attached. And none of these were caused by Snyder. He's not even directing DC movies anymore. You people got what you wanted.

[bat39]

No our current situation is born of WB rushing out a DC movie universe, over reacting to criticisms, carving up movies and struggling to keep actors attached. And none of these were caused by Snyder. He's not even directing DC movies anymore. You people got what you wanted.

Exactly.

Our current situation was actually born of WB wanting to have it both ways with Justice League - they got rid of Snyder and got Whedon in to make it more like the Avengers - and the result is a bland movie that both Snyder fans and anti-Snyder fans don't particularly care for.

I truly feel that had we gotten Snyder's Justice League, we'd have had a far greater appreciation for his entire story - including the parts of BvS that we didn't care for.

Yes, we did get a glimpse of the more classic, experienced and optimistic Superman that Snyder intended at the end of JL, but the road to getting there was nowhere near as compelling as it could have been.

[Carabas]

Yes, we did get a glimpse of the more classic, experienced and optimistic Superman that Snyder intended at the end of JL, but the road to getting there was nowhere near as compelling as it could have been.

When you set out from the POV that Superman needs to learn how to be an optimistic person then you have no business making superhero stories.

[PhantomStranger]

Donner, Bruce Timm, and Deborah Levine (Lois & Clark) are the only producers who have gotten Superman right. Superman is not dark and gritty. The Kents are not cyncal, stormTrumper Americans.

That is all...

[PhantomStranger]

When you set out from the POV that Superman needs to learn how to be an optimistic person then you have no business making superhero stories.

At least not Superman stories...

[HeroVladimir93]

When you set out from the POV that Superman needs to learn how to be an optimistic person then you have no business making superhero stories.

I wouldn't go that far. It would have interesting to see Superman's legend and iconic status to be rebuilt from the ground up. The concept was good but the execution could have been better.

[Ascended]

I think there are a number of variables in the mix, and since we're sitting on the outside, we'll never really know how and why things went down like they did. And Kuwagaton said, this is a thing where we just throw bile and hate in all directions, and maybe (certainly) we do it more than we should, and more than the films actually deserve. None of them are perfect, but I don't think MoS or even Squad is any more flawed than the average Marvel film. The DCEU just isn't allowed the wiggle room the MCU gets.

However! I am a fan, and as a fan I blame a whole number of things and people.

First, I do blame whoever it is who is in charge of WB's DC movies. We've seen tons of problems behind the scenes; changes in management and administration and cast and director and other behind-the-scenes guys, films being green lit when there isn't even a script or director attached, films announced then delayed or cancelled, no one knows whether Affleck is playing Batman this week or not, now Cavill is probably out as Superman but he's still got a contract to fulfill so who knows how that'll end.....there's chaos in the building and no one seems to have a foundation under them. At least, that's how it sounds from here.

I also think they tried too hard to establish a shared universe too quickly, worrying about the next film or two down the line rather than focusing on the film in front of them. When you can't divert your attention to your current project, odds are people won't care about the next one.

I don't think WB's decision makers really get Superman's appeal. They understand Batman; he's a simple archetype that is aimed at appealing to the lowest common denominator. Everyone has had a bad day and wanted to take it out on those we perceive as responsible. And all you need to play Batman is a good looking guy who can growl and spend six months in the gym before filming. Superman's trickier, and he sort of demands that the audience believe in something better. Superman requires a little faith, but WB seems to miss that, and therefore they hire the wrong people to oversee the character.

On top of that, the public has a very strong notion of what Superman is, even though they really have no idea of who Superman actually is. And fans, we're even worse. And because Superman is Superman, he gets put under the microscope more than any other superhero. He's the first, he's the best, and he damn well better fit inside the box people have for him. If he doesn't? Hellfire and brimstone. Superman isn't a character who gets to be a character, he's an ideal in people's heads (that he never really completely represented, if you read the actual books) and he has to fulfill the Space Messiah archetype we put on him.

I also think there's a social component. Superman is about restraint. He could rule the world. Kill every major villain on earth. Be rich. Powerful. But he works a 9-5, gets yelled at by his boss, and is barely middle class. "Restraint" is something people seem to have forgotten about and abandoned.

Marvel isn't helping either. I think a lot of people now look at the MCU as the blueprint for doing a good, traditional superhero movie. Sure, you can get away with the occasional Logan or Deadpool, but by and large the public now thinks that a spandex superhero movie should be fun, intellectually lite, and bombastic. Man of Steel's more dramatic, serious take was maybe a few years too soon, and starring a character few people connect to "dramatic," and I think it caught everyone off guard and the DCEU never provided the quality people needed to recover.

[HeroVladimir93]

First, I do blame whoever it is who is in charge of WB's DC movies. We've seen tons of problems behind the scenes; changes in management and administration and cast and director and other behind-the-scenes guys, films being green lit when there isn't even a script or director attached, films announced then delayed or cancelled, no one knows whether Affleck is playing Batman this week or not, now Cavill is probably out as Superman but he's still got a contract to fulfill so who knows how that'll end.....there's chaos in the building and no one seems to have a foundation under them. At least, that's how it sounds from here.

I also think they tried too hard to establish a shared universe too quickly, worrying about the next film or two down the line rather than focusing on the film in front of them. When you can't divert your attention to your current project, odds are people won't care about the next one.

I don't think WB's decision makers really get Superman's appeal. They understand Batman; he's a simple archetype that is aimed at appealing to the lowest common denominator. Everyone has had a bad day and wanted to take it out on those we perceive as responsible. And all you need to play Batman is a good looking guy who can growl and spend six months in the gym before filming. Superman's trickier, and he sort of demands that the audience believe in something better. Superman requires a little faith, but WB seems to miss that, and therefore they hire the wrong people to oversee the character.

On top of that, the public has a very strong notion of what Superman is, even though they really have no idea of who Superman actually is. And fans, we're even worse. And because Superman is Superman, he gets put under the microscope more than any other superhero. He's the first, he's the best, and he damn well better fit inside the box people have for him. If he doesn't? Hellfire and brimstone. Superman isn't a character who gets to be a character, he's an ideal in people's heads (that he never really completely represented, if you read the actual books) and he has to fulfill the Space Messiah archetype we put on him.

Yes! Excellent argument, good sir! When the lead actor shows more enthusiasm for the character and his legacy than the people who have a financial stake on the character and his legacy, then there is obviously a problem. As for Superman's portrayal, that's something I can get behind as well. I seriously dislike that people think that Superman is a vanilla goody-two-shoes who never gets angry, never gets sad, never shows any emotion beyond eagerness to do the right thing. Any attempts to give him more humanity, moral complexity or emotional nuance are met with distrust and opposition, because people are apparently too afraid of giving Superman some meaningful evolution. That's why I like the DCEU's portrayal of Superman and that's why I like how Bendis is handling the comic books, because they show Superman to be more than just an archetypical Boy Scout; he is a person with real, human emotions. He's never reached the standards others have placed on him, nor has he even tried to. We should cut him some slack because he is human, just like the rest of us.

[Jim Kelly]

I'm not getting any younger. It frustrates me when they put the movies on hold--whether it's Nicholas Cage, Josh Hartnett, Brandon Routh, D.J. Cotrona or Henry Cavill in the role--that's just more time sucked away as they try to figure out what to do. I'd rather they got on with it, no matter the actor or the script.

[Uncanny Mutie]

When you set out from the POV that Superman needs to learn how to be an optimistic person then you have no business making superhero stories.

Amen. //thread

[bat39]

I think there are a number of variables in the mix, and since we're sitting on the outside, we'll never really know how and why things went down like they did. And Kuwagaton said, this is a thing where we just throw bile and hate in all directions, and maybe (certainly) we do it more than we should, and more than the films actually deserve. None of them are perfect, but I don't think MoS or even Squad is any more flawed than the average Marvel film. The DCEU just isn't allowed the wiggle room the MCU gets.

However! I am a fan, and as a fan I blame a whole number of things and people.

First, I do blame whoever it is who is in charge of WB's DC movies. We've seen tons of problems behind the scenes; changes in management and administration and cast and director and other behind-the-scenes guys, films being green lit when there isn't even a script or director attached, films announced then delayed or cancelled, no one knows whether Affleck is playing Batman this week or not, now Cavill is probably out as Superman but he's still got a contract to fulfill so who knows how that'll end.....there's chaos in the building and no one seems to have a foundation under them. At least, that's how it sounds from here.

I also think they tried too hard to establish a shared universe too quickly, worrying about the next film or two down the line rather than focusing on the film in front of them. When you can't divert your attention to your current project, odds are people won't care about the next one.

I don't think WB's decision makers really get Superman's appeal. They understand Batman; he's a simple archetype that is aimed at appealing to the lowest common denominator. Everyone has had a bad day and wanted to take it out on those we perceive as responsible. And all you need to play Batman is a good looking guy who can growl and spend six months in the gym before filming. Superman's trickier, and he sort of demands that the audience believe in something better. Superman requires a little faith, but WB seems to miss that, and therefore they hire the wrong people to oversee the character.

On top of that, the public has a very strong notion of what Superman is, even though they really have no idea of who Superman actually is. And fans, we're even worse. And because Superman is Superman, he gets put under the microscope more than any other superhero. He's the first, he's the best, and he damn well better fit inside the box people have for him. If he doesn't? Hellfire and brimstone. Superman isn't a character who gets to be a character, he's an ideal in people's heads (that he never really completely represented, if you read the actual books) and he has to fulfill the Space Messiah archetype we put on him.

I also think there's a social component. Superman is about restraint. He could rule the world. Kill every major villain on earth. Be rich. Powerful. But he works a 9-5, gets yelled at by his boss, and is barely middle class. "Restraint" is something people seem to have forgotten about and abandoned.

Marvel isn't helping either. I think a lot of people now look at the MCU as the blueprint for doing a good, traditional superhero movie. Sure, you can get away with the occasional Logan or Deadpool, but by and large the public now thinks that a spandex superhero movie should be fun, intellectually lite, and bombastic. Man of Steel's more dramatic, serious take was maybe a few years too soon, and starring a character few people connect to "dramatic," and I think it caught everyone off guard and the DCEU never provided the quality people needed to recover.

I totally agree with you on this. Especially the part where Superman doesn't get to be a character but has to live up to an ideal.

MOS did a great job fleshing out Clark Kent as a character. He grew up knowing that he's different, knowing that he has powers and in a dark and cynical world, people will be suspicious of him at the very least and actively turn against him at worst. Despite that, he helps out secretely out of a sense of personal responsibility - the same sense of responsibility that ultimately leads him to reveal himself to the world to fight Zod. And then he's overwhelmed by the fact that people the world over view him as a Messiah while others view him as a possible threat to human society as we know it.

A lot of people hated the portrayal of Jonathan Kent, particularly the bit where he suggested that Clark should maybe consider letting people die rather than reveal his powers to the world. But much like Superman is forced to be an ideal, the same has applied to the Kents as well. They HAVE to be this kind, humble farmer couple who literally raise their alien adoptive son to be a superhero and dedicate his life to saving the world. They can't be a couple of fundamentally decent human beings, but with flaws like everyone else, put into an extraordinary situation and trying to do the best they can to help their extraordinary son lead a normal life. Honestly, I kinda relate to Costner's Jonathan, who, rightly or wrongly, wanted his son to hide his abilities from the world and was prepared to sacrifice his life for that, over the Jonathan who lectures Clark on how he needs to be the world's savior. And yes, tha latter is an exaggeration of the 'classic' idea of Jonathan Kent, but its also how a lot of people think the character should be.

[Agent Z]

When you set out from the POV that Superman needs to learn how to be an optimistic person then you have no business making superhero stories.

Yeah because there have been no superhero stories about people starting out as a bit on the cynical side before growing more optimistic.

[JAK]

A few points, I just can't help myself:

1: SR is *not* Donner. It was an attempt to be, but it shares VERY little of the actual heart and tone. It's much of the superficial without the guts, and that's why it rings hollow with people. (imo)

2: I feel JL would have done the same numbers regardless of who's version it was. The public wasn't showing that they'd made their minds up about that one movie, it was evidence that they were done after the last two. I don't see any reason why Snyder's version would have done better than the version we got. In fact, much of the feel about JL (besides "meh") was positive in comparison to the other two films - especially where Superman is concerned. That's worth noting, I think.

And.... Ascended! Great post, as usual! I do have a few notes, just to add:

I think there are a number of variables in the mix, and since we're sitting on the outside, we'll never really know how and why things went down like they did. And Kuwagaton said, this is a thing where we just throw bile and hate in all directions, and maybe (certainly) we do it more than we should, and more than the films actually deserve. None of them are perfect, but I don't think MoS or even Squad is any more flawed than the average Marvel film. The DCEU just isn't allowed the wiggle room the MCU gets.

I think that's because they put the long game hard work in. As you said, WB tried to skip that, and people noticed. They had loads of time to get there first, but they failed - and now they pay the price. It was their "game" to lose, and they've done so in spectacular fashion (if not unexpected - it *is* WB, after all.. lol)

However! I am a fan, and as a fan I blame a whole number of things and people.

I don't think WB's decision makers really get Superman's appeal. They understand Batman; he's a simple archetype that is aimed at appealing to the lowest common denominator. Everyone has had a bad day and wanted to take it out on those we perceive as responsible. And all you need to play Batman is a good looking guy who can growl and spend six months in the gym before filming. Superman's trickier, and he sort of demands that the audience believe in something better. Superman requires a little faith, but WB seems to miss that, and therefore they hire the wrong people to oversee the character.

On top of that, the public has a very strong notion of what Superman is, even though they really have no idea of who Superman actually is. And fans, we're even worse. And because Superman is Superman, he gets put under the microscope more than any other superhero. He's the first, he's the best, and he damn well better fit inside the box people have for him. If he doesn't? Hellfire and brimstone. Superman isn't a character who gets to be a character, he's an ideal in people's heads (that he never really completely represented, if you read the actual books) and he has to fulfill the Space Messiah archetype we put on him.

Totally agreed on WB. If it was one time, it'd be one thing... but they've done this repeatedly, in both the comics *and* live action. So that suggests that it's a "mindset" problem over there. They just now have started to show signs that they're beginning to get away from a "the character is the problem" mentality with Superman, but that pattern isn't as long as I'd like it to be to feel comfortable that it's where they'll stay.

On public perception, I see this just a tad differently. If he truly has to be the Space Messiah, it's not in the way they always seem to do it. They make these overt allegorical and symbolic things, but always in a "Jesus-like" martyr-ish way. They lose a lot of the action and goodwill toward the character like this and set themselves up for failure. If they had him with a bit more 40's grit (as we've both often said), I think he'd sail like a champ and leave a lot of the allegory behind.

I also think there's a social component. Superman is about restraint. He could rule the world. Kill every major villain on earth. Be rich. Powerful. But he works a 9-5, gets yelled at by his boss, and is barely middle class. "Restraint" is something people seem to have forgotten about and abandoned.

Very true - I guess one could also make the case that he's been too restrained at times, but it's also gone about the wrong way. More about trying to get an emotional reaction from it (or lack of it) and they tend to lose his powerful action side in the process.

Marvel isn't helping either. I think a lot of people now look at the MCU as the blueprint for doing a good, traditional superhero movie. Sure, you can get away with the occasional Logan or Deadpool, but by and large the public now thinks that a spandex superhero movie should be fun, intellectually lite, and bombastic. Man of Steel's more dramatic, serious take was maybe a few years too soon, and starring a character few people connect to "dramatic," and I think it caught everyone off guard and the DCEU never provided the quality people needed to recover.

Oddly enough, I actually think WB (as per usual, imo) aren't so much a few years too soon as about 10 years too late. If MoS had come out around the time of Singer's X-Men movie (or the Nolan films), I think the reaction would have been a lot more positive. Darker tones, darker costumes, darker interpretations - all 90's to early 00's mindsets. By the time MoS came out, people were primed for things like CW's Flash and Supergirl. "Moody" had been done to death.

I don't think that means it has to be all light, though - I'd say it has to be more light than dark in tone, but you can tell something more serious if it's crafted right. But they can't go all "Frank Miller" and expect a DKR reaction anymore. If it's more serious (which can be good) than it has to still have a determined optimism that we haven't been seeing enough of in the DCEU (imo, of course). It can still happen, but they're behind the 8 ball now - just as they were before Justice League... though maybe some of the edge is now off.

[JAK]

Yeah because there have been no superhero stories about people starting out as a bit on the cynical side before growing more optimistic.

There have been, but that doesn't fit Superman.

It's also why a PG Deadpool movie or a Punisher movie using fresh flower petals as weapons wouldn't fly with the general public - the whole "square peg, round hole" thing. Sure, it fits *somebody*. Just not *that* somebody.

[The World]

Just stop drawing from modern Superman so much, MY GOD. It's the same stuff on repeat, Doomsday, Zod, I'm a farmboy at heart, Oh no Lois, I'm a human being at heart, constantly on repeat. It's all so tiresome and dull. You've got 80 years of history to work from on a character that was a ground floor hit so use it.

Why haven't we gotten an entire movie with just Superman in space dealing with space mysteries.