Would JJ Abrams make a good director for a Superman reboot?

[SiegePerilous02]

Even if Abrams wasn't potentially dropping the ball with RoS (along with Terrio), I'd be hesitant to see him take over Superman. It may be a crowd pleasing hit, but after he basically rehashed A New Hope with TFA, I'd be worried he would just rehash Donner/Reeve for the millionth time with his Superman movie. And they need to move the hell on from that movie already. It's doable, but so far the only alternative is Snyder and the results are less than stellar.

Anyway, seeing RoS this weekend because my friend from school wants to hang out and already bought us tickets. Seeing the movie itself feels more like a chore at this point, as does every event film. If the tickets weren't bought I'd be tempted to see Cats instead lol which might be even more of a train wreck, but odds are it be more entertaining.

[Superbat]

Superman needs Rian Johnson, not JJ.

[The World]

Superman needs Rian Johnson, not JJ.

I saw Knives Out on release and ended up thinking something similar. There over all messages of the movie seemed in line with something that could work for Supes if blown up.

[DochaDocha]

Superman needs Rian Johnson, not JJ.

My initial reaction was anger and repulsion, but I should at least remind myself that Rian Johnson actually directed something I liked, Breaking Bad episode "Ozymandias."

Since Rian Johnson is a bit infamous for "subverting expectations," I feel like a lot of Superman creators tried to "subvert expectations" by making him so flawed, which has rarely ever worked out for me. As I've said a few times on this board, most creators try to make their heroes attractive by focusing on the good they can do, whereas Superman creators actively point out stuff Superman can't do or does poorly.

[Vordan]

Superman needs Rian Johnson, not JJ.

Nope. “Subverting expectations” is what Snyder did. “Deconstruction” is what Snyder did as well. Obviously Rian is a better filmmaker than Snyder but I doubt anyone is interested in another “Superman sucks” story.

[Superbat]

Nope. “Subverting expectations” is what Snyder did. “Deconstruction” is what Snyder did as well. Obviously Rian is a better filmmaker than Snyder but I doubt anyone is interested in another “Superman sucks” story.

RJ would not do a "Superman sucks" story.

[SiegePerilous02]

My initial reaction was anger and repulsion, but I should at least remind myself that Rian Johnson actually directed something I liked, Breaking Bad episode "Ozymandias."

Since Rian Johnson is a bit infamous for "subverting expectations," I feel like a lot of Superman creators tried to "subvert expectations" by making him so flawed, which has rarely ever worked out for me. As I've said a few times on this board, most creators try to make their heroes attractive by focusing on the good they can do, whereas Superman creators actively point out stuff Superman can't do or does poorly.

He's the biggest target for deconstruction and parody. At this point, it's been done so often that it's boring and uncreative and just displays a lack of imagination.

We need a more talented filmmaker than either of them who loves Superman for who he is and just makes a great movie with him. Currently they seem to be in short supply, or are just not interested in dealing with WB. Can't say I blame them.

[Agent Z]

There is a difference between "Superman Sucks" and "Superman isn't perfect".

[SiegePerilous02]

There is a difference between "Superman Sucks" and "Superman isn't perfect".

Unfortunately sometimes those that aim for the latter end up producing the former.

And nobody is asking for him to be perfect. What constitutes interesting flaws is often a source of debate. Those that you feel are asking for him to be flawless still perceive interesting character flaws in their preferred takes.

[Agent Z]

Unfortunately sometimes those that aim for the latter end up producing the former.

I think when the former and the latter have actually happened is itself debatable.

And nobody is asking for him to be perfect.

Okay, I'm not saying that you are but the conversations I've been in and witnessed on this forum and others tell me that, yes, some Superman fans do think he should be perfect. You only need to look at how they demonize any version who that diverges from their preferred take as the perfect and pure paragon. I'm not talking about simply not liking those takes, I'm talking about them flat out calling him a villain when those versions take actions that are in no way actually villainous.

I mean, we've got another thread here were people are calling the Smallville version of Clark "selfish" for retiring after a life time of superheroism to raise a family in a world were other superheroes exist.

[Vordan]

I think when the former and the latter have actually happened is itself debatable.


Okay, I'm not saying that you are but the conversations I've been in and witnessed on this forum and others tell me that, yes, some Superman fans do think he should be perfect. You only need to look at how they demonize any version who that diverges from their preferred take as the perfect and pure paragon. I'm not talking about simply not liking those takes, I'm talking about them flat out calling him a villain when those versions take actions that are in no way actually villainous.

Snyder himself had a villainous Superman as his endgame. With Batman being the good guy who saves everything at the end no less. Some of us were simply savvy enough to know where it was all going beforehand.

It’s one thing to say “Superman is flawed and will always try even if it doesn’t work out”. It’s another to do yet another tired take on “Lois gets fridged so Superman goes evil and Batman saves the day BECAUSE HE’S BATMAN XD”.

[Agent Z]

Snyder himself had a villainous Superman as his endgame. With Batman being the good guy who saves everything at the end no less. Some of us were simply savvy enough to know where it was all going beforehand.

It’s one thing to say “Superman is flawed and will always try even if it doesn’t work out”. It’s another to do yet another tired take on “Lois gets fridged so Superman goes evil and Batman saves the day BECAUSE HE’S BATMAN XD”.

Thanks for proving my point.

Snyder had a Superman who was mind controlled by Darkseid who was taking advantage of his grief. And it wasn't an endgame nor would Batman alone be the one who saved the day. In fact, Snyder planned to kill off Batman and then have the rest of the League fight off the Apokalips invasion.

What people hate about Snyder and what he actually did in the movies or planned to do are not always the same thing.

[SiegePerilous02]

I think when the former and the latter have actually happened is itself debatable.

Of course.

Okay, I'm not saying that you are but the conversations I've been in and witnessed on this forum and others tell me that, yes, some Superman fans do think he should be perfect. You only need to look at how they demonize any version who that diverges from their preferred take as the perfect and pure paragon. I'm not talking about simply not liking those takes, I'm talking about them flat out calling him a villain when those versions take actions that are in no way actually villainous.

Calling him a villain in some instances is a bit much I agree. I definitely wouldn't call DCEU Superman a villain for example. But I do, at this point, definitely think he is an attempt to deconstruct Superman and not make him perfect, but utterly failing overall to make him interesting and engaging as a character. Especially now that we have an idea of where it was headed even before the Whedon debacle, and the negative impact it has had on the cinematic brand, it deserves almost all the lambasting it gets (personal attacks on Snyder and his family are the step too far). Meanwhile, I wouldn't call Wonder Woman, Aquaman or Billy Batson perfect in their movies, but they still are engaging and have clear moments where they come into their own as heroes within their origin movies. Recently, as far as live action films have been concerned, Superman didn't get that. He has to have a five film arc before he becomes a fully formed Superman, and that's goddamn stupid, I'm sorry.

From my experience, those that defend the so called flawed takes make strawmen out of those criticizing them. I think most people who criticize them don't want a flawless, perfect paragon. Writers like Moore, Morrison, Maggin, Byrne (much as I personally hate his take), or the early seasons of S:TAS present a Superman who isn't perfect but is more engaging as a character while being overall powerful and inspirational. There is some overlaps in people who criticize those as well, but I think most agree that the Snyder take falls short even compared to early DCAU Superman.

I mean, we've got another thread here were people are calling the Smallville version of Clark "selfish" for retiring after a life time of superheroism to raise a family in a world were other superheroes exist.

I've never watched the show, so can't really comment from experience. I think the basic idea of Clark retiring with Lois and having a kid after a long superhero career isn't very selfish and can work on paper. On the other hand, this does seem to be the show where Clark dragged his feet for ten years and fought most of his rogues gallery before even becoming Superman because he wasn't 100% committed. I think it may come across as more selfish when added on top of all that stuff, compared to a Clark who had conviction and knew what he wanted to do with his life early on.

Snyder himself had a villainous Superman as his endgame. With Batman being the good guy who saves everything at the end no less. Some of us were simply savvy enough to know where it was all going beforehand.

Agreed. Had I known this would be a thing back then, I would have been a LOT less forgiving of the DCEU take than I was, even after BvS. Then JL happened, and then the explanation of what could have happened came out, and now I realize we were screwed no matter what.

It's even hard to enjoy MOS anymore (Flawed but the best of the Snyder movies) with that arc in mind

[Doctor Know]

With Rise of Skywalker becoming the new punching bag of the hour. A number of reviews and even a segment on HLN have criticized ROS as bad fanfiction. The kind you would expect from a middle or high schooler, but this is coming from a the biggest movie studio on the planet. Plus, the reuse of previous movie ideas, redone for the new movie. And the return of the criticism of the movie being "a video game that you can't play".


Revisit JJ's movies and his limitations become all the more apparent.

Mission Impossible 3 - Mystery Box the movie with loud action and style to distract you from thinking.

Star Trek 2009 - Wrath of Khan again.

Super 8 - Close Encounters + E.T. love letter

Star Trek Into Darkness - Wrath of Khan again and again.

Star Wars The Force Awakens - A New Hope + Empire Strikes Back elements, because of course.

Star Wars Rise of Skywalker - Return of the Jedi. Did we expect something different?


I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. How much Disney broke the bank on this movie and how much they stand to lose.


I already voted against JJ doing Superman. We already have Superman Returns. We don't need another Donner Remake with a series half-baked mysteries (which JJ admits he doesn't know the answers to when he creates them) included, and break neck pace of references and callbacks shoved in. Because JJ has to fill his movies with as many shot for shot, line for line scenes as possible to distract the audience from the truth. He's added nothing knew and contributed nothing.

The Force Awakens, Rise of Skywalker and Into Darkness being the worst offenders of this trend so far. Watch and rewatch those movies back to back and you'll see what I mean.

[Agent Z]

I've never watched the show, so can't really comment from experience. I think the basic idea of Clark retiring with Lois and having a kid after a long superhero career isn't very selfish and can work on paper. On the other hand, this does seem to be the show where Clark dragged his feet for ten years and fought most of his rogues gallery before even becoming Superman because he wasn't 100% committed. I think it may come across as more selfish when added on top of all that stuff, compared to a Clark who had conviction and knew what he wanted to do with his life early on.

As someone who did watch the show, I can tell you with utmost honesty that this "dragging his feet for ten years" nonsense really does not exist in the show. From the beginning we see Clark as a hero using his powers to save people, one of them being Lex Luthor of all people. Yes he had moments of frustration and occasional selfishness but he was never anything more a guy who was willing to put others safety before his own, even dying at one point. The guy was a hero, a flawed one but a hero nonetheless.