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

[daBronzeBomma]

Superman is, by far, the most successful superhero on live-action television ever.

Since the medium has been around, Clark has already had 4 TV shows centered on him, with a 5th one on the way:


THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN ran from 1951 thru 1957 for a total of 6 seasons and 104 episodes.

SUPERBOY ran from 1988 thru 1992 for 4 seasons and 100 episodes.

LOIS & CLARK ran from 1993 thru 1997 for 4 seasons and 87 episodes.

SMALLVILLE ran from 2001 thru 2011 for 10 seasons and 217 episodes.

SUPERMAN & LOIS will run from 2020 onwards.


And that's not yet counting his spinoff TV sagas like SUPERGIRL and KRYPTON.

So ... isn't this a bit odd?

Clark is arguably the most powerful of all superheroes. You'd think he'd be a natural for the big screen and find consistent success there, only he hasn't. Whereas, he seems much more comfortable on the small screen that quite frankly rarely has the budget to let him cut loose.

Why does Clark consistently work better on tv than film?

[Flash Gordon]

It's because he gets flicks like SUPERMAN RETURNS and BATMAN V. SUPERMAN. That's not even mentioning JUSTICE LEAGUE, which is hardly a "movie". Those aren't going to make anyone interested in the character.

SMALLVILLE, for instance, had it's flaws but also had purpose and interest in exploring the character and his world. All of those shows, really.

People always harken to the '78 flick as the be all end all, but really the reason it has lasting power is because it was a fully formed aesthetic. It had vision. When was the last time Superman had a real visionary take on him? MAN OF STEEL was different, sure- but was never followed up on in any way that mattered. It also ended without real resolution and that resolution never came in another feature. So ultimately it was just "stuff happened on screen for a while".

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

It's because he gets flicks like SUPERMAN RETURNS and BATMAN V. SUPERMAN. That's not even mentioning JUSTICE LEAGUE, which is hardly a "movie". Those aren't going to make anyone interested in the character.

SMALLVILLE, for instance, had it's flaws but also had purpose and interest in exploring the character and his world. All of those shows, really.

People always harken to the '78 flick as the be all end all, but really the reason it has lasting power is because it was a fully formed aesthetic. It had vision. When was the last time Superman had a real visionary take on him? MAN OF STEEL was different, sure- but was never followed up on in any way that mattered. It also ended without real resolution and that resolution never came in another feature. So ultimately it was just "stuff happened on screen for a while".

Yeah, basically this. I agree that Superman clearly has a better tv track record than big screen, but I think that’s more down to circumstance, how things just happened to play out, rather than the character being inherently more suited for one medium over the other. If characters like Wonder Woman, Shazam and Captain America can get audiences invested in their characters, I don’t see why Superman can’t. I think he can thrive on both mediums, just needs the right direction.
If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

[Vordan]

Yeah, basically this. I agree that Superman clearly has a better tv track record than big screen, but I think that’s more down to circumstance, how things just happened to play out, rather than the character being inherently more suited for one medium over the other. If characters like Wonder Woman, Shazam and Captain America can get audiences invested in their characters, I don’t see why Superman can’t. I think he can thrive on both mediums, just needs the right direction.
If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

He’s in the Lego and Injustice and even the DCUO games so I can’t agree with that. Of course some incarnations like Silver Age Superman who can break the time barrier and juggle planets with ease are not suited for video games at all, but others could. The Golden Age/New 52 Superman would easily fit into a video game, he’d basically play as the Hulk. And he’s vulnerable enough that your average mook could be a threat to him. Even the Post Crisis/Rebirth Superman could have a game depending on where you’d set it. Place him in Kandor or the PZ and you could easily have a Metroidvania Arkham set up for a Superman game.

[DochaDocha]

He’s in the Lego and Injustice and even the DCUO games so I can’t agree with that. Of course some incarnations like Silver Age Superman who can break the time barrier and juggle planets with ease are not suited for video games at all, but others could. The Golden Age/New 52 Superman would easily fit into a video game, he’d basically play as the Hulk. And he’s vulnerable enough that your average mook could be a threat to him. Even the Post Crisis/Rebirth Superman could have a game depending on where you’d set it. Place him in Kandor or the PZ and you could easily have a Metroidvania Arkham set up for a Superman game.

But Lego and Injustice aren't Superman games as much as they are games with Superman in it, and DCUO doesn't have a playable Superman.

I loved Lego Batman 2 & 3, especially their comedic take on Superman, but there's nothing amazing about playing as Superman. Okay, I take that back, the best part of Superman is that he feels so obviously broken compared to the other playable characters: doesn't take damage, has a huge skill set, can fly, etc... the only thing he can't do are little tasks that involve super-specific abilities to unlock puzzles. And in Injustice, they leveled the playing field so Superman has no (theoretical) leg up on any other characters. Not that I think they designed the fighting game incorrectly; if anything the I think the story explanation for why everyone is on his level is superfluous.

If you want to make a Game of the Year-contending Superman game, that's a whole 'nother question. Superman is like the El Dorado or Fountain of Youth for game developers: everyone wants to find the way to make it.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah, basically this. I agree that Superman clearly has a better tv track record than big screen, but I think that’s more down to circumstance, how things just happened to play out, rather than the character being inherently more suited for one medium over the other. If characters like Wonder Woman, Shazam and Captain America can get audiences invested in their characters, I don’t see why Superman can’t. I think he can thrive on both mediums, just needs the right direction.
If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

Reality says otherwise but I just can't believe that in 80 years of data to mine they haven't figured out how to knock out a great Superman game. There are so many technically smart people in different facets of that industry. If it's intimidating... I mean they don't even need a masterpiece first game to start

As far as other comic characters go, it's not like Shazam or Cap have worked as well as Superman on the small screen. If Adventures and Smallville are really the only two strong runs... he still has Batman beat on tv too.

For all the discussions on the next movie I stick with the idea of taking it for granted that the reader already knows all that stuff you feel obligated to tell them. Cut to the chase.

[Xero Kaiser]

If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

Eh, if they make things like Asura's Wrath, Bayonetta, Super Robot Wars and DBZ work, I'm sure it's not impossible to come up with a version of Superman that will fit in a game.

[The World]

Yeah, things could work for a Superman game have been produced. They've just all been produced in Japan.

[TheBatman]

I'd say Supes having more success on TV is more an issue of quantity over quality. There have been more successful TV shows, but none of those shows made the same impact or lasting influence that Reeve Superman did. While no modern Superman TV show was a polarizing as MOS, SR, or BvS, its not as if most of them are must see TV, IMO.

[JAK]

Why does Clark consistently work better on tv than film?

I think a lot of it has to do with nuance. If they screw something up on a TV show, they have 12-ish or more episodes to learn and do better. It has time (hopefully) to "find it's legs" and figure out what works. If the team is smart, they'll learn and lean into what works.

But with movies? It's like having a pilot episode that just has a massive budget. And the next movie is just episode two. Not nearly the same amount of screen time to correct what's wrong, and since these things take so long to make, that restricts the prep time - so they're hit two different ways.

Add in WB's almost instinctive idiocy when it comes to Superman, and movies become a match made in hell. lol So it's to the point where I'd rather see a tv series than a movie - with perhaps the exception of making a movie using a TV cast. Not that a movie can't work, but Superman is a particular enough property that it's a lot harder to make work without a team who has a good understanding of the character.

[Flash Gordon]

I think a lot of it has to do with nuance. If they screw something up on a TV show, they have 12-ish or more episodes to learn and do better. It has time (hopefully) to "find it's legs" and figure out what works. If the team is smart, they'll learn and lean into what works.

But with movies? It's like having a pilot episode that just has a massive budget. And the next movie is just episode two. Not nearly the same amount of screen time to correct what's wrong, and since these things take so long to make, that restricts the prep time - so they're hit two different ways.

Add in WB's almost instinctive idiocy when it comes to Superman, and movies become a match made in hell. lol So it's to the point where I'd rather see a tv series than a movie - with perhaps the exception of making a movie using a TV cast. Not that a movie can't work, but Superman is a particular enough property that it's a lot harder to make work without a team who has a good understanding of the character.

I think herein lies a bit of the problem, too. The insistence that a movie must be serialized and that it must lead to an expansive series of films. Superman may work best as a serialized character, but on paper something like The Rocketeer should also be serialized and that film is a very contained.

If we look at the most successful superhero joints, they're flicks with a vision. A true aesthetic. Logan, The Dark Knight, Joker, Superman '77, Batman '89. Aquaman had this too. The big Marvel movies may be loud and homogeneous but they have a distinct style to them that floats across.

Superman needs that. He needs something personal with room to breathe. It doesn't need to be dark and introspective, and it doesn't need to be overly silly. It just needs to be something.

[Kuwagaton]

The Rocketeer is a period piece short story character in the vein of a serial though. The film pretty much fit in everything Stevens put down and all these IDW sequels are squeezing the same lemon. By the time Reeve was suiting up, there was a mountain of original material to represent and even that well received take just scratched the surface.

Not that I mean to say a great vision with great direction wouldn't make a better film than we've had, just that a serial product requires less effort to translate Superman

[Flash Gordon]

The Rocketeer is a period piece short story character in the vein of a serial though. The film pretty much fit in everything Stevens put down and all these IDW sequels are squeezing the same lemon. By the time Reeve was suiting up, there was a mountain of original material to represent and even that well received take just scratched the surface.

Not that I mean to say a great vision with great direction wouldn't make a better film than we've had, just that a serial product requires less effort to translate Superman

That's fair, but The Rocketeer is a fully formed vision. That character could easily continue on but that flick also stands fine on it's own. It's such a great movie because of this. That's my point.

I would prefer a new Superman take that uses elements from other material, not an adaptation. I love Superman but there isn't THAT much stuff that warrants an exact adaptation. We need a vision for the future and a look into the character from fresh eyes. There's a ton to PULL from, Morrison in particular.

[Vordan]

There’s more involvement from the comic people with the TV shows than the movies. Also the TV shows frequently focus on Superman, they let us get inside his head and see his hopes, fears, loves, and rivalries. The movies tend to be “well what does Superman MEAN bro” in an attempt to be deep that frequently ends up being try hard and shallow. Singer was too mired in nostalgia while Snyder drifted too far away from the core of the character. Like others have said, TV shows have more chances to course correct when they make mistakes unlike movies which HAVE to nail it in one go.

Also the TV shows show us new stuff while the movies rehash the same old crap we’ve seen before. Lex and Zod are the only two villains most directors seem to know about and they’re both utterly played out.

[MarvelMaster616]

I think that's a good question. Superman movies do seem to be more hit or miss than TV shows. I've enjoyed every Superman TV show I've ever seen on some level. And I think part of the reason for that is a TV show's format makes it easier to flesh out Superman's character, motivations, and principles. Other heroes might have flaws, foils, and complexities, but they're easier to work into a 2 hour movie. Superman, being the paragon of paragons, requires a bit more nuance. And I think that's why his story works so much better in a TV show format. But that's just my opinion.