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

[DochaDocha]

At the risk of sounding snooty, I think a no-villain Superman movie would work best if it had a little bit of intellectual challenge/stimulation for the viewers. Let's look at the top 10 movies of all time (domestic):

1 2015 Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens $936,662,225 $1,131,561,399 $2,068,223,624
2 2019 Avengers: Endgame $858,373,000 $1,939,427,564 $2,797,800,564
3 2009 Avatar $760,507,625 $2,029,197,650 $2,789,705,275
4 2018 Black Panther $700,059,566 $646,853,595 $1,346,913,161
5 2018 Avengers: Infinity War $678,815,482 $1,369,544,272 $2,048,359,754
6 1997 Titanic $659,363,944 $1,548,844,451 $2,208,208,395
7 2015 Jurassic World $652,270,625 $996,584,239 $1,648,854,864
8 2012 The Avengers $623,357,910 $895,455,078 $1,518,812,988
9 2017 Star Wars Ep. VIII: The Last Jedi $620,181,382 $712,358,507 $1,332,539,889
10 2018 Incredibles 2

Yeah, not sure any of those movies do it. And on the International list:

1 2009 Avatar $2,029,197,650 $760,507,625 $2,789,705,275
2 2019 Avengers: Endgame $1,939,427,564 $858,373,000 $2,797,800,564
3 1997 Titanic $1,548,844,451 $659,363,944 $2,208,208,395
4 2018 Avengers: Infinity War $1,369,544,272 $678,815,482 $2,048,359,754
5 2015 Furious 7 $1,165,715,774 $353,007,020 $1,518,722,794
6 2015 Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens $1,131,561,399 $936,662,225 $2,068,223,624
7 2019 The Lion King $1,112,675,054 $543,638,043 $1,656,313,097
8 2017 The Fate of the Furious $1,013,000,000 $225,764,765 $1,238,764,765
9 2015 Jurassic World $996,584,239 $652,270,625 $1,648,854,864
10 2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

(Hmmm, not sure why it still lists Avatar as number one, but whatever).

My observation has been that visual spectacle is more important on the international side than domestic, partially explaining Avatar's number 1 status and the fact that two Fast and the Furious movies made this list and Transformers: Extinction is number 15... I'm afraid that if you make audiences stop and think in a Superman film, it's going to be a $100 million loser at the box office.

EDITS: The International figures are non-US. I meant to post worldwide (US + International) but posting International was telling about how "mindless action" can be appealing, especially to crowds who don't necessarily want to watch a movie with subtitles.

[JAK]

At the risk of sounding snooty, I think a no-villain Superman movie would work best if it had a little bit of intellectual challenge/stimulation for the viewers. Let's look at the top 10 movies of all time (domestic):

1 2015 Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens $936,662,225 $1,131,561,399 $2,068,223,624
2 2019 Avengers: Endgame $858,373,000 $1,939,427,564 $2,797,800,564
3 2009 Avatar $760,507,625 $2,029,197,650 $2,789,705,275
4 2018 Black Panther $700,059,566 $646,853,595 $1,346,913,161
5 2018 Avengers: Infinity War $678,815,482 $1,369,544,272 $2,048,359,754
6 1997 Titanic $659,363,944 $1,548,844,451 $2,208,208,395
7 2015 Jurassic World $652,270,625 $996,584,239 $1,648,854,864
8 2012 The Avengers $623,357,910 $895,455,078 $1,518,812,988
9 2017 Star Wars Ep. VIII: The Last Jedi $620,181,382 $712,358,507 $1,332,539,889
10 2018 Incredibles 2

Yeah, not sure any of those movies do it. And on the International list:

1 2009 Avatar $2,029,197,650 $760,507,625 $2,789,705,275
2 2019 Avengers: Endgame $1,939,427,564 $858,373,000 $2,797,800,564
3 1997 Titanic $1,548,844,451 $659,363,944 $2,208,208,395
4 2018 Avengers: Infinity War $1,369,544,272 $678,815,482 $2,048,359,754
5 2015 Furious 7 $1,165,715,774 $353,007,020 $1,518,722,794
6 2015 Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens $1,131,561,399 $936,662,225 $2,068,223,624
7 2019 The Lion King $1,112,675,054 $543,638,043 $1,656,313,097
8 2017 The Fate of the Furious $1,013,000,000 $225,764,765 $1,238,764,765
9 2015 Jurassic World $996,584,239 $652,270,625 $1,648,854,864
10 2011 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II

(Hmmm, not sure why it still lists Avatar as number one, but whatever).

My observation has been that visual spectacle is more important on the international side than domestic, partially explaining Avatar's number 1 status and the fact that two Fast and the Furious movies made this list and Transformers: Extinction is number 15... I'm afraid that if you make audiences stop and think in a Superman film, it's going to be a $100 million loser at the box office.

EDITS: The International figures are non-US. I meant to post worldwide (US + International) but posting International was telling about how "mindless action" can be appealing, especially to crowds who don't necessarily want to watch a movie with subtitles.

I think it's good to make people think... but there's a point where it becomes a case of diminishing returns. For an idea like this, the thought has to be backed up with action and - specifically in Superman's case - inspiration. After SR being middling and MoS and BvS being downright downers, the public has certainly shown it's distaste for a Superman where thought is on the sad or negative side. No, not looking for kittens and rainbows (because somebody always goes there like a reflex), but active and uplifting overall - definitively uplifting.

You do that, lots of action and heart, and it's a winner (imo).

[Jim Kelly]

It seems like the common ground of the debate has been shifted away from taking a villain/antagonist out of the movie to taking the action out of the movie. It seems to me those are two different things.

Of course, there's virtually no traditional story that doesn't have an antagonistic force of some kind. Most thinking stories do. As I learned in school:

Man against Man
Man against Nature
Man against Himself
Man against Society

A lot of disaster movies force a villain into the story--but I don't really like that, since the central drama is the fight for survival. We don't need a villain in those stories. Superman is a guy who saves people from disasters (natural or manmade). A story like "Must There Be A Superman?" could be adapted and lengthened for a feature length movie. It seems to have all the conflict, without a traditional villain--unless you count the Guardians of the Universe as villains.

If the movie expands the part at the beginning of the story, where Superman is in outer space performing a feat at the request of the Guardians (against what seems to be a natural cosmic threat, rather than a villain), that sets up an opening with a lot of spectacle and action.

It's Man against Nature--since Superman saves the immigrant people from an Earthquake (and other natural disasters could appear in a movie). It's Man against Himself--since Superman is struggling within himself to do the right thing. And it's Man against Society--since the expectations of society on Superman produce his internal conflict.

[Lightning Rider]

It seems like the common ground of the debate has been shifted away from taking a villain/antagonist out of the movie to taking the action out of the movie. It seems to me those are two different things.

Of course, there's virtually no traditional story that doesn't have an antagonistic force of some kind. Most thinking stories do. As I learned in school:

Man against Man
Man against Nature
Man against Himself
Man against Society

A lot of disaster movies force a villain into the story--but I don't really like that, since the central drama is the fight for survival. We don't need a villain in those stories. Superman is a guy who saves people from disasters (natural or manmade). A story like "Must There Be A Superman?" could be adapted and lengthened for a feature length movie. It seems to have all the conflict, without a traditional villain--unless you count the Guardians of the Universe as villains.

If the movie expands the part at the beginning of the story, where Superman is in outer space performing a feat at the request of the Guardians (against what seems to be a natural cosmic threat, rather than a villain), that sets up an opening with a lot of spectacle and action.

It's Man against Nature--since Superman saves the immigrant people from an Earthquake (and other natural disasters could appear in a movie). It's Man against Himself--since Superman is struggling within himself to do the right thing. And it's Man against Society--since the expectations of society on Superman produce his internal conflict.

Great post. A lot of people were making great suggestions as to how to fill the action void, but the narrative is more what I was looking for.

The categories you put forth are useful. I think BvS was very much "man vs society", and while I enjoyed that dynamic, it didn't sit well with many and undercut his core message. There's a more complete and successful way to execute that, and I would definitely watch that kind of adaptation of Must There Be A Superman.

I think man against himself combined with man vs nature is probably the way to go here. Some kind of impending doom, some incoming supernova-type threat that people look to Superman to stop, but that he feels hopeless to prevent. So he starts to question whether he has allowed the Earth to become unprepared to deal with the threat, and emotionally engages the possibility of not being able to save everyone. Lois and Jimmy would be key to that. It's a good opportunity for him to pull out all the stops; scientific lab tinkering, mountain-moving and reconfiguring terrain, planetary exploration, studying Kryptonian archives. I'd even throw in Lex as a prisoner, with the rule being that he's in no way responsible and never leaves his cell.

[mathew101281]

No, their is a reason why most Superheroes(Superman included) have drifted away from non supervillains as time has passed. You can only match your primary-colored demigod up against mobsters and street thugs For so long before you realize they make pretty weak obstacles for a character of such power and supposed intellect. Superman would have to be really dumbed down to make antagonism from common criminals a believable obstacle. Or you would have to really sup up the common criminal and in that case you essentially have a super villain anyway.

[Jim Kelly]

Why assume there has to be a villain at all? I think the only reason is to sell merch--although most Superman movies just fall back on using Lex Luthor and General Zod, which seem like rather colourless, visually bland characters to me and not really enticing for merch.

I remember a critique of the Donner movie, back in the day, said that Superman has an origin that establishes he was brought to this world for a purpose (both Jor-El and Jonathan Kent state as much) and yet he just ends up battling bad guys. Even if those bad guys are supervillains bent on global contest, it somehow doesn't seem Superman's ultimate destiny.

Superman is the central figure of the Hero's Journey--what Joseph Campbell wrote about--and a character so large in scope ought to have a bigger arc.



Campbell said to Bill Moyers that the Hero leaves his people and goes on a great journey to find wisdom and revelation and returns to his people to bring that back to them. This plays out in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, where Dave Bowman (the ultimate hero of man's journey to enlightenment) dies and is transformed into the Star Child that then returns to Earth to do something--we assume to take us to the next stage of our evolution.

Superman ought to be a character of big ideas--not merely solving problems with his fists.

[Ascended]

Naturally you can have plenty of action without having a *villain* and I think there's room to do a good Superman film where he doesn't have to get in a big fist fight at the end.

But it's not nearly as formulaic as what we're used to, and it's a bigger risk.

It could be done of course. You've got social corruption, and even if you bring in a guy like Bruno, Morgan Edge, or Glennmorgan you're not really dealing with a "villain" as we think of the term. Such a film would also give Clark Kent something to do other than service Superman's arc.

And Man v Nature is an easy one. Anyone remember the issue Pak wrote where Superman "fought" a hurricane? You take Superman, drop him in the middle of a natural disaster, and you've got yourself a movie worth seeing even if its not Weather Wizard or Blaze pulling the strings.

But if you're gonna try a movie like this, you better be damn sure about it because audiences are gonna be super skeptical.

[JAK]

Why assume there has to be a villain at all? I think the only reason is to sell merch--although most Superman movies just fall back on using Lex Luthor and General Zod, which seem like rather colourless, visually bland characters to me and not really enticing for merch.

I remember a critique of the Donner movie, back in the day, said that Superman has an origin that establishes he was brought to this world for a purpose (both Jor-El and Jonathan Kent state as much) and yet he just ends up battling bad guys. Even if those bad guys are supervillains bent on global contest, it somehow doesn't seem Superman's ultimate destiny.

Superman is the central figure of the Hero's Journey--what Joseph Campbell wrote about--and a character so large in scope ought to have a bigger arc.

Campbell said to Bill Moyers that the Hero leaves his people and goes on a great journey to find wisdom and revelation and returns to his people to bring that back to them. This plays out in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, where Dave Bowman (the ultimate hero of man's journey to enlightenment) dies and is transformed into the Star Child that then returns to Earth to do something--we assume to take us to the next stage of our evolution.

Superman ought to be a character of big ideas--not merely solving problems with his fists.

Honestly, I'm not so crazy about putting him in the center of Campbell's "Hero's Journey" for the next film. Maybe it's because that was beaten like a dead horse to defend the DCEU and the very thought of that turns me right off... but no matter how it got there, that's where I am.

At this point, I want something that (overall) feels good. I don't want it overwrought, burdened, etc. Conflict and determination, absolutely. High stakes/odds, sure. But after 2.5 movies of it I've lost patience with a movie's worth of "finding who I am" if it's not sold JUST right, and I have a feeling the public is there, too. I'm not saying "do a popcorn movie," but maybe I'm not *not* saying that, either.

Unless it's just crazy different from the standard story, I'm about where I've seen others get to of skipping the origin story and just jumping into the good stuff.

[Ascended]

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

[Flash Gordon]

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.

[exile001]

I honestly can never see "Superman 64" typed out and not think of one of the reviews that came out at the time, saying the graphics were so bad that Superman looked like, and I quote:

"A flying log in panties".

And now it's in your head. You're welcome. lol!

That is perhaps the most perfect critique I've ever seen. lol.

[Adekis]

I say take a page from dr. Who and star trek and have some really trippy sci fi space anomalies, bizarro world on a collision course with earth; orphaned and hungry baby sun eater, an invasion of microscopic people who's home world was destroyed but have the effect of an incurable disease on the people of earth. That sort of thing. Sci fi ethical issues with no easy answers where superman does what's best for everyone involved.

As a big fan of both Trek and even more of Doctor Who, I'm utterly sold on that premise.

Heck, Doctor Who is my second favorite superhero, after Superman. I'd love to see a DW type story as a Superman movie - er, with more room cleared out for action scenes and super-feats, of course!

[Last Son]

yeah... both 'the movie' and 'returns' could be seen as movies without villains... or edited to remove Lex without a major issue and that is one of the biggest complaints about those shows.

Personally I'll be happy if we can get a movie where Superman doesn't 'die' or get critically injured.... My personal dream for a 'villain' would be Mxyptlyk. Some good old fashioned mischief and mayhem... but without the real threat of city destroying angst and destruction.

That's coming from the belief that a supervillain absolutely has to have powers otherwise they don't count.

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.

There's only four movies, what more do you want? He fought Lex in the first one, defeated his plan to destroy the west coast, then he went on to fight superpowered villains. And even if Superman III is hated, it showed Superman battling a corrupt businessman which is kind of along the lines of what you're saying. And that was all before Lexcorp Lex was a twinkle in John Byrne or Marv Wolfman's eyes(and I know about the imaginary story where Lex reforms and starts Lexcorp but he wouldn't count as a corrupt businessman for obvious reasons).

[Flash Gordon]

I just mean Superman doesn't seem to have any grand idea beyond just stopping bad guys. The first half of StM, which is gorgeous, sets him up as this saviour figure that just isn't lived up to in the closing act or in the sequels.

It felt like the build up was to a Superman who was going to fundamentally change human life and make Earth a better place. He does protect us from Zod but after he defeats Lex I would have liked to see him make some big gesture against all wealthy looney tunes like Lex. Zod is also a holdover from his own world, so it isnt like he's battling off the flaws of Earth so much as flaws of his own kind.

At least in the way George Reeves in AoS would make grandiose statements and smash through walls.

[Ascended]

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.