How could a Superman movie with no villain/antagonist work?

[Flash Gordon]

This is actually a problem with the character across all adaptations, and it's shared by other highly powerful heroes too.

With the level of capability Clark has, there's really no reason why he couldn't transform the entire planet and change our entire socio-political structure within a single generation. Between his raw power and his influence with the public, Superman has the ability to topple governments in the span of hours.

But you can't tell that story in a ongoing continuity that has to, more or less, reflect the real world. So excuses have to be invented for why Clark and the other heroes on his level don't achieve more. And after seventy years of this (I don't think it was a consideration for at least the first decade of comics) these heroes have ended up having the stigma of being incredible powerful but ultimately impotent. It doesn't do anyone any favors, but Clark least of all because he's the poster boy for the entire genre as well as the "stupid crazy powerful" subgenre.

Yeah, totally. I guess that's why I tend to steer away from superheroes lately that aren't underwater adventurers. If we must have SERIOUS Superman stories, which I'm not sure we need across all platforms, the character ultimately can't do much. He becomes a victim of his narrative.

I'd argue that a film like StM that only has 3 sequels could do something else though. For instance, there's no reason for Henry Cavil's Superman to feel impotent and martyr himself against CGI-Man- he can actually change the world for the better over the course of a few flicks. He feels impotent because the writers need him to so that they can make Justice League and an expanded universe, but it isn't organic.

[JAK]

I agree that a big problem in the Donner films was always "now what?" Superman arrives on Earth to fulfill this great destiny, and the first half of STM sells it so well and then he fights the materialism of man via the real estate tycoon Lex Luthor...and after that, that's it. There's not enough of a big climax and it surely doesnt lead into anything later.

Superman should have been here battling fellas like Luthor, to achieve a higher purpose. Not just vague "lead by example" platitudes.

Superman has become a man of platitudes. I would like that done away with tbh.

This is actually a problem with the character across all adaptations, and it's shared by other highly powerful heroes too.

With the level of capability Clark has, there's really no reason why he couldn't transform the entire planet and change our entire socio-political structure within a single generation. Between his raw power and his influence with the public, Superman has the ability to topple governments in the span of hours.

But you can't tell that story in a ongoing continuity that has to, more or less, reflect the real world. So excuses have to be invented for why Clark and the other heroes on his level don't achieve more. And after seventy years of this (I don't think it was a consideration for at least the first decade of comics) these heroes have ended up having the stigma of being incredible powerful but ultimately impotent. It doesn't do anyone any favors, but Clark least of all because he's the poster boy for the entire genre as well as the "stupid crazy powerful" subgenre.

Actually, one idea would be to turn the notion on it's head; it's a bit Disney-esque, but going from people saying "you have a destiny" to him deciding that he makes his own destiny could be pretty cool.

The overall feel I have in my head about the Superman film series I'd love to do throws out the "higher destiny" part out completely. He doesn't even know about Krypton until the second film (think Action Comics #1 Golden Age for the first film in origin and tone, he doesn't fly until the very end, 2nd movie is "Silver Age in Space") Have it just be about his adventures and how he rolls with what's happening. Loading him down with so much extra stuff just gets in the way, imo.

[JAK]

We absolutely don't need another origin. It's f**king Superman, people know where he came from.

Depending on the Superman, I absolutely agree. The one I have in mind would need one, but that's just because it's so different. But if it's a "general" take, yeah - let's just get to the good stuff.

[Kuwagaton]

This is actually a problem with the character across all adaptations, and it's shared by other highly powerful heroes too.

With the level of capability Clark has, there's really no reason why he couldn't transform the entire planet and change our entire socio-political structure within a single generation. Between his raw power and his influence with the public, Superman has the ability to topple governments in the span of hours.

But you can't tell that story in a ongoing continuity that has to, more or less, reflect the real world. So excuses have to be invented for why Clark and the other heroes on his level don't achieve more. And after seventy years of this (I don't think it was a consideration for at least the first decade of comics) these heroes have ended up having the stigma of being incredible powerful but ultimately impotent. It doesn't do anyone any favors, but Clark least of all because he's the poster boy for the entire genre as well as the "stupid crazy powerful" subgenre.

As a fan who doesn't ask, I have to say that I am in part representing those who don't think there's a need to ask or answer those questions. You can have the great Superman we've had for 80 years without any strong answers. I think the best you can do is not go far below the surface there. The DCEU Superman was kinda defeated in taking them head on, though Millar's somewhat simple Red Son did its best when it came to just touching those ideas.

What you said though I have to agree with, when it comes to ongoing continuity affecting the movies. Your finite saga can ignore the system in place for a never ending story, but that's kind of a problem when your saga is about that never ending story. After a while you're not really doing Superman anymore.

[Ascended]

Depending on the Superman, I absolutely agree. The one I have in mind would need one, but that's just because it's so different. But if it's a "general" take, yeah - let's just get to the good stuff.

Yeah, if you're doing a fairly substantial departure from the "Doomed Planet, desperate scientists...." basic origin then you definitely need to cover that stuff.

If I ever got to make my "Golden Age Superman set in the 40's" movie (and I'm not a film maker so don't hold your breath) the origin would need to be touched on a little bit, just to help provide some context in relation to the setting. But a soft-reboot movie that still plays in the same basic "vanilla" sandbox? No need to tell us about Krypton blowing up. We've seen that plenty.

Oh, JAK, on a unrelated note I hope you've had a chance to play some DCUO lately. The last DLC (Metal part 2) was buggy as hell when it launched (and we've had serious problems with some broker exploits that f**ked our economy all to hell!) but the open world of Thanagar is really damn cool and the base items are excellent. I gotta admit I've avoided the raids, since they were kinda broken at launch. They've been fixed but I figured I'd give it some extra time just to make sure.

As for heroes like Clark being impotent...I definitely agree that burdening them with "you have a higher destiny" stuff only makes the problem worse. It's bad enough when Clark *could* change the world but doesn't, and it's infinitely worse when the audience is told that Clark *will* change the world and still doesn't. If you just have Clark doing his thing, going on adventures and saving lives, you can side-step the problem to a large degree, at least for a while. But as soon as destiny gets thrown into it, or Clark decides to take a "big picture" approach to the world.....at that point you've painted yourself into a corner and your hero better deliver on that.

I think this is part of why characters like Thor have managed to do well in the films; Thor's not trying to change the world or save our future, he's just trying to protect Midgard and drink some mead. He doesn't have big, long-term plans for humanity so no one is questioning why he's allowing corruption, hunger, war, disease, etc., to continue to exist.

[DochaDocha]

One of the appealing things of the Legion of Superheroes movie is that they could say Superman actually created all the social, political, and economic change to make Earth a better place.

But give the keys to the kingdom to the wrong guy, they'd tell that story except all the progress was enacted by Vibe or something stupid.

[kingaliencracker]

So far, the only live action villains we've seen in the Superman films are Lex Luthor, General Zod & Crew, and Doomsday. 8 movies, and that's it. And I'm not even counting Superman & The Mole Men.

I'd like to get a little deeper into his rogue's gallery before we try a movie without any villain.

[JAK]

Yeah, if you're doing a fairly substantial departure from the "Doomed Planet, desperate scientists...." basic origin then you definitely need to cover that stuff.

If I ever got to make my "Golden Age Superman set in the 40's" movie (and I'm not a film maker so don't hold your breath) the origin would need to be touched on a little bit, just to help provide some context in relation to the setting. But a soft-reboot movie that still plays in the same basic "vanilla" sandbox? No need to tell us about Krypton blowing up. We've seen that plenty.

Big time. In mine (which I think I've mentioned a bit) we'd actually see him raised in the orphanage (dropped off by the Kents), so that's a pretty big departure. Learning he's from Krypton (2nd movie) is why he goes into space (sorta like SR, but VERY different) and Silver Age antics ensue.

Oh, JAK, on a unrelated note I hope you've had a chance to play some DCUO lately. The last DLC (Metal part 2) was buggy as hell when it launched (and we've had serious problems with some broker exploits that f**ked our economy all to hell!) but the open world of Thanagar is really damn cool and the base items are excellent. I gotta admit I've avoided the raids, since they were kinda broken at launch. They've been fixed but I figured I'd give it some extra time just to make sure.

Actually, I haven't played in over a month or more, but I need to get on there to finish my fortress with the winter seasonal stuff, lol! As for the rest, I'd heard about it, and I'm looking forward to playing - sadly I hurt my back (something stupid) a few days ago, so after resting a few days and decorating I hope to get on a little bit.

As for heroes like Clark being impotent...I definitely agree that burdening them with "you have a higher destiny" stuff only makes the problem worse. It's bad enough when Clark *could* change the world but doesn't, and it's infinitely worse when the audience is told that Clark *will* change the world and still doesn't. If you just have Clark doing his thing, going on adventures and saving lives, you can side-step the problem to a large degree, at least for a while. But as soon as destiny gets thrown into it, or Clark decides to take a "big picture" approach to the world.....at that point you've painted yourself into a corner and your hero better deliver on that.

I think this is part of why characters like Thor have managed to do well in the films; Thor's not trying to change the world or save our future, he's just trying to protect Midgard and drink some mead. He doesn't have big, long-term plans for humanity so no one is questioning why he's allowing corruption, hunger, war, disease, etc., to continue to exist.

I almost like the idea where he doesn't do it *because* he's seen despots on other worlds, and the idea of having to control it all - even to a lesser extent - puts the same bad taste in his mouth of getting rid of free will that he saw in the eyes of the despots' captive citizens. If one wanted to go this route, it may also explain why he is the way he is: he's trying to set an example to inspire others. So he's almost "dad to the planet," in a sense, but not in any weird way. Not sure about the very last part, though, that's more of a "spitball-y" idea.

[Flash Gordon]

Actually, one idea would be to turn the notion on it's head; it's a bit Disney-esque, but going from people saying "you have a destiny" to him deciding that he makes his own destiny could be pretty cool.

The overall feel I have in my head about the Superman film series I'd love to do throws out the "higher destiny" part out completely. He doesn't even know about Krypton until the second film (think Action Comics #1 Golden Age for the first film in origin and tone, he doesn't fly until the very end, 2nd movie is "Silver Age in Space") Have it just be about his adventures and how he rolls with what's happening. Loading him down with so much extra stuff just gets in the way, imo.

I'd like to toss out "destiny" too, honestly. He's a refugee who wants to make his new home the best it can be.

[Kuwagaton]

That's my one knock on the Crowe model, that they had the chance to obscure the "Space Jesus" idea that runs from the end of Krypton to his debut, and they probably added decorations to that tree if anything. If you have to go into that I don't think you should really burden the first movie of a reboot like that.

[Vordan]

That's my one knock on the Crowe model, that they had the chance to obscure the "Space Jesus" idea that runs from the end of Krypton to his debut, and they probably added decorations to that tree if anything. If you have to go into that I don't think you should really burden the first movie of a reboot like that.

Yeah it’s something I’d really wish they’d move away from, but it’s been such a consistent part of outside movie adaptions maybe they feel obligated to have it. I prefer Superman being a choice Clark makes rather than some destiny Jor-El planned out for him in the minutes before Krypton blew up.