Superman fandome thread

[Myskin]

It's true that Superman is iconic - iconic as in "recognizable" - but that's not necessarily a good thing in terms of what kind of adaptations we could expect, or even whether we could expect any adaptations. As a character, he is so held back by the common perception people have of him that finding something interesting for him to do is basically impossible.
It's incredible how many people fail to see that one of the main points of strength of Batman is not that he is "dark", but rather that he is incredibly flexible in terms of mood. You can get noir Batman with TAS, hardboiled Batman, happy-go-lucky Batman with Brave and the Bold (look at that cartoon and tell that it's not 100% sillier and "happier" than anything ever done with Superman in, I don't know, 30 years?), even cyberpunk Batman with Batman Beyond. Yes, of course, some adaptations can fail (even if it happens VERY rarely - I mean, The Batman 2004 cartoon was generally pretty forgettable, but it had 5 seasons and a direct-to-DVD movie, so not exactly a flop). But the point is - they can always reinvent him and (unless they do a really poor job) he will always be relatable to a degree.

On the other hand, Superman can be just Superman. I mean, sometimes they tried to change the mood of the world around him to make him a bit edgier, but they never did it in a really satisfying way. The main problem with Zack Snyder is that in MOS, or BvS, or JL Superman himself seems to be completely out of place. On the one hand you have Snyder's grey world with a constant warlike atmosphere everywhere and a noir mood; and, even if Snyder will never be as good as Michael Mann or David Fincher, somehow it works. But then you have this flying guy with perfectly slicked back hair, a cape and a forced smile and some very generic view on what the world should be like, and it's like, uh? There's always something incoherent in those movies. Everything Superman does looks or sound fake. Maybe the problem is the actor (and boy, is Cavill flat and inexpressive) or maybe Snyder is not good at giving actors instructions (Batfleck has similar problems, to be fair), but it's as if he was a puppet rather than a real character.

So... Would those movies be better with a brighter colors and more smiles? IMHO absolutely not. If anything, it would make Superman even more incoherent. Because - again - I think that Snyder's world somehow makes sense. Without Superman in it, MOS could be the story of brave reporter Lois Lane fighting an alien invasion, and maybe it would be a better movie. Putting a brighter Superman in MOS would be more or less like putting candy bears on a grilled steak with bacon. To make Superman really work in the Snyderverse, they should have made him rougher and gruffier - maybe a more optimistic version of Zod. Maybe the movie would have worked. But at one point the character wouldn't have resembled Superman anymore and fans would have rejected him.

Basically Superman is at the center of an unsolvable contradiction. On the one hand, everybody knows - more or less - what Superman looks and sounds like. Because yes, he's iconic and recognizable. We all know the iconic images of Superman in mid-air from Superman #01, him making the kryptonite chains explode, etc. And - if you are a reader - maybe you have also heard some of his mottos, like the one about right and wrong in the universe ("There is a right and a wrong in this universe. And that distinction is not hard to make", or something like that). But the problem is that to make a movie or a comic book you have to implement these features in a real story. Possibly a compelling one. And at that point everything crumbles. Because Superman's ethics is very generic (I mean, even if Maggin himself wrote it and he's one of the definitive Superman writers, that motto about right and wrong is INCREDIBLY easy to refute) and depicting a character indulging in physical prowess becomes boring very quickly (a character constantly punching or fighting someone is boring after a while too, unless the director is George Miller). Basically you have to get rid of some of the iconic elements and build something completely new. But A- You have to very good at it and B- The new version of the character is always - ALWAYS - at risk of being rejected. Am I the only one who remembers the readers' ridiculous OUTRAGE when Superman renounced his American citizenship?

Basically, you have an icon which is not really a character anymore. So in order to make him a character in a story again, you have to make him less iconic. And there is another major problem - in real life superheroes don't exist. I mean, characters who are good-natured and popular but - at the same time - so physically powerful that they could single-handedly decide the fate of a single nation in the blink of an eye. Basically, no one in the entire world resembles Superman. And that's a huge problem in terms of relatability.

You could argue that not even super-soldiers or masked vigilantes exist, and that's true. But as far as The Avengers and concerned, the filmmakers have been generally VERY skillful at creating around them the same atmosphere of a spy movie. They are not superheroes, but rather a military squad. And this means that they sometimes they don't agree on what to do, their actions have strong political consequences etc.. I mean, it's not that the Avengers are realistic. But the dynamics of their world are very easy to get and interesting to follow, it's something everyone has already seen in movies like Mission Impossible or James Bond. So when they go cosmic with Thanos and infinity gauntlets it's easier to accept it, because you already have a pretty good idea of how the team works from the previous movies and Thanos is basically a cosmic terrorist. If the Avengers had been more generic, without being constantly at odds with each others - basically just superheroes fighting an alien invasion - they wouldn't be the Avengers and they wouldn't be as interesting. They would have been the Justice League. Snydercut or not.

As for Batman, well, besides him being more flexible than Superman, you mostly get the impression that the world around him is basically a more or less exaggerated version of a detective novel. I mean, look at that Reeves' The Batman trailer and tell me that it's not a Fincher psychological thriller movie. With a psychotic detective as the main character, he just wears a costume instead of a trench. I mean, again, it's not "realistic" but that doesn't mean that a casual viewer doesn't understand the rules of the game just from the trailer and doesn't accept them. Reeves' Batman is as realistic as The Silence of the Lambs, in which one of the characters is basically an almost omniscient version of Dracula, just without fangs.

Quite frankly, if you'd like to understand what's wrong with Superman you shouldn't look further than Maggin's Must There Be a Superman. It's a very good story, but it works ONLY if you are already into Superman's world. In order to understand it, you have to accept everything about the character - his powers, his approach, his ethics - BEFORE reading it. It's very derivative. But it doesn't work as an introduction to the character. IMHO in order to make a Superman movie (or a comic book relaunch) work you should go way more straightforward and make the character work and evolve and be relatable from the very first moment he appears, and that's something no one has done in, I don't know, more than 30 years?

IMHO the only good attempt at making Superman work as a character without renouncing his mindset but without making him a boy-scout has been in Superman: Birthright. I am referring ONLY to the first two issues - Supes a reporter in Africa. Everything becomes more predictable after that and the final issues of the miniseries are a bit all over the place, but those first two issues would be an excellent starting point. Even if it would take a LOT of work, skill and creative freedom to build something from there, and I really don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Robanker]

I'll preface this with I'm not directing it entirely at you, but more the argument. Here's the thing. I get where you're coming from, but arguing that nobody on Earth like Superman exists is really strange because nobody like Batman does either. All the money, intelligence, drive and skill with none of the inherent corruption who never compromises his morals and has the most rigid stance on killing in all of comics? Yes, nobody can lift a tank, but nobody altruistic does? They're both exaggerations. That's why they're superheroes.

The main difference is that Superman actually will kill if absolutely necessary, but he's perceived the other way. Batman just won't, but we feel he's just flawed enough that he might (and in adaptions he does so freely, to be fair). They're both inherently unrealistic with the only difference truly being that Bruce's starting point is the womb of a human woman, so we relate because how dare someone tell me I'm adopted and from the stars instead of a billionaire by birth, which frankly you are or aren't. By the time you can reason you can't be Superman, you already can't be Batman unless you have the money already and that's, what, 1% of the population who generally horde it to themselves? Great. Superman is the guy who holds it together in front of everyone because he's their rock. Bruce wears it on his sleeve. Both those people exist in nature, but neither to the scale of these characters. Weird to take one to task but promote the other for the same thing.

You have to already accept everything about Batman to buy in as well, otherwise he's a rich man who thinks the system has failed so he dresses as a Bat and goes where the law can't just so he can turn them back over to the system that failed and restart the problem that birthed him. Batman is an ouroboros if we're going to be pedantic and pick him apart. All those detectives and people who want him gone and nobody takes a blood test or asks "who can afford to be Batman?" Nobody tracks the car or just sets up a killzone where he has to let an innocent die (which he won't) if he wants to protect himself? Come on. It's all made-up. We agree when buying our ticket to engage on the rules of the world.

I completely agree that Superman's iconography can hurt him at times, but it need not be an albatross around his neck. He just needs to stand for something. This is where Batman does have an edge on the dude in the modern day because he is hardline against organized crime and-- like him or hate him-- he does not just act as a safety net the way Clark does. If your status quo is good, Superman works best. If not, perhaps it's Batman. Superman needs to champion a cause or the underdog again. He needs to have a battle to fight. We're dealing with militarized police and suppression of the common people in the USA right now, so perhaps that's a place to start. A new, younger Superman who isn't fully up-to-snuff with his powers; can't even fly until the end. He takes on the corrupt Metropolis PD and finds out that Luthor has been funding them and getting dirty cops put in there who all end up indebted to him as a way for him to control the entire city. Next movie? You already have the audience's heart so you can bring in Brainiac and have Superman fight an issue he can't punch anymore. Or Parasite and treat it like a horror movie where Clark is suddenly prey.

He can easily work, but they have to be willing to let him be a character as you noted. But the arguments that Clark is hard to adapt or somehow impossible when other superheroes are perfectly viable is grade-A bullshit, sorry.

He has parents he loves and moves to the big city where he works a job he likes for no money. He sometimes has a pet dog. He has a woman he's in love with but has to contend with her liking Superman. He has his friends at the office and those outside it (the JLA). He's constantly torn between assimilating into the melting pot, his cultural heritage and the expectations of his folks to be the best person ever. The dude has most of our lives, but instead he comes from somewhere else and is better than me so I guess he can't at all be relatable. People just hear "alien" and automatically tune out because, well, how dare a foreigner be relatable. I swear, if you replace "Krypton" with a terrestrial region then most people are suddenly going to be very uncomfortable with the reason they don't like him anymore. If the entire world can embrace Thor, the Guardians of the Galaxy and everyone in goddamn Star Wars, it can embrace Superman. None of them are human. But they are people, and most of them look identical to us as does Kal-El. Let's stop making excuses.

Superman has all the pieces to a great narrative that made people love him for approaching 85 years now. He need not be Christ or a plot resolver, just a character again. On that, I agree entirely. The rest just sounds like the same excuses I've been hearing for years that always translates to "I'm cynical and he is a guy who, in order to work, proves me wrong. I don't like being wrong, ergo Superman is stupid. More benevolent billionaires please."

[Agent Z]

At this point, I'm not even sure why any superhero, let alone Superman, killing at all in adaptations is a big deal given how often its done.

[Vordan]

At this point, I'm not even sure why any superhero, let alone Superman, killing at all in adaptations is a big deal given how often its done.

Well Myskin was talking about taking a stand: Not killing your opponents is one of those. People grill Batman for that stance all the time, let them grill Superman for it. But Supes should be against it because
1. If he’s willing to kill judiciously he could 100% end most of his fights immediately. None of his Rogues except maybe Zod, Doomsday, and Bizarro could survive against a Supes that’s willing to use lethal force whenever he feels like it.
2. Supes is a vigilante. Him killing people when he feels justified is not something I can just accept. There’s a huge movement right now about law enforcement using lethal force whenever they feel like it in America, I don’t want Supes getting painted as a Supercop
3. It’s already too ingrained that Supes killing is a bad thing. All the “evil” Superman do it. I doubt you could convince the general audience to accept it for him.
4. He respects all life even the lives of mass murderers. It should be a source of contention within the DCU, but I want him to be steadfast in that principle because I think it has value. There are plenty of people right now who oppose the death penalty, even for absolute monsters. Hell outside of America most first world countries don’t practice it, nor do they give their law enforcement guns.

[Myskin]

The main difference is that Superman actually will kill if absolutely necessary, but he's perceived the other way. Batman just won't, but we feel he's just flawed enough that he might (and in adaptions he does so freely, to be fair).

As far as I am concerned, the kill rule is not a dealbreaker as several people think it to be. Batman doesn't kill and Superman doesn't kill (except for the movies, maybe). In that regard, there aren't huge differences between them. You can create convincing stories in which Batman kills and you can create convincing stories in which Superman kills. It takes some effort, it will never be the general rule (they will never kill on a regular basis) and it mainly depends on the tone of the story, but you can do it. You can have Golden Age stories in which Batman lets a guy slip into a bath of acid and I doubt anyone would have any problem with it. I can vaguely understand the outrage with Superman breaking Zod's neck in MOS - mostly because the entire scene is very graphic - but that specific moment has become so infamous that it is almost misleading. That is, it's not that MOS is a good movie up to that moment. MOS is full of problems INCLUDING that scene. If Superman had let Zod survive, MOS would have been a problematic movie in any case.
Anyway, in general the idea of heroes killing in movies is so vague and easy to bypass that it is hardly a dealbreaker. You can create movies in which superheroes kill (mostly indirectly) the villains, movies in which the villains are the cause of their own demise even if the heroes would want to save them, and movies in which the heroes don't kill and the villains survive. There is plenty of examples in that regard and I really don't see any reason to discuss this point further.

t arguing that nobody on Earth like Superman exists is really strange because nobody like Batman does either.

You missed these parts from my previous post:

You could argue that not even super-soldiers or masked vigilantes exist, and that's true (...)
I mean, again, it's not "realistic"

James Bond doesn't exist either, for that matter. And people like Wyatt Earp existed, but they were not at all like they are depicted in the movies. However, secret agents, gunmen and private detective exist/existed and they inspired characters which have become archetypical in movies (and literature, etc.) And - if the directors are good - these archetypes are very recognizable and very relatable even in today's movies.
I mean, average people don't really know how a secret agent works in real life. I'd say that people are at least partly influenced by James Bond movies, but if someone decided to become a secret agent because of Daniel Craig, he/she would be pretty disappointed. However, filmic secret agents act in a narrative context which is familiar to more or less everyone. You can have vaguely more realistic depictions, like Homeland, or fantasy scenarios like James Bond's. But both will have some narrative rules in common - for example, you expect the heroes to go undercover at one point - and these narrative rules have some ties to reality (secret agents go undercover in reality too).
There are movies in which Batman is a secret agent, movies in which he is a detective and movies in which he is a brooding, almost deranged P.I. . The level of realism can vary (Nolan's TDK is more realistic than Burton's Batman because Joker's permawhite skin doesn't exist in reality, but TDK is clearly less realistic than, I don't know, David Simon's The Wire), but the point in common is that in all of these versions he is always Batman. Nolan's Batman is not "less Batman" than Burton's Batman. He is almost always relatable, just in a different way - according to genre that specific filmic approach belongs to. Sometimes he is as relatable as Clint Eastwood in a spaghetti western, and sometimes he's more like James Bond. You could argue that all of them are variations on a single power fantasy and maybe it is true (power fantasy is the basis for every superhero including Superman, anyway). But making each version linked to a specific genre really helps a lot when the directors want to get a specific mood or even reimagine some details of the characters.
For example, I don't feel betrayed when I realize that the ending of TDK is bittersweet. It's coherent with the noir genre TDK belongs to, that specific version of the character, etc. If Batman had successfully rescued Harvey Dent and made him sane again, the movie would not have been as coherent as it is. But that specific ending is not only coherent with the movie and that specific vision, but with comic book Batman as well. There are hundreds of stories which end in Batman's partial defeat.
Another example: making the Avengers a military/spy squad was probably the most clever idea they could have to put the team together in movies. It makes sense (within the fantasy world of MCU, of course), establishes the nature of the menaces and - more than everything - it's perfectly coherent with the characters. All of them (with one exception, that is Thor) have a military background. They all have recognizable, unique dynamics, and they are all coherent with that specific genre. Iron Man is a scientist/spy. Cap America is a soldier/spy, etc.

Now, the problem with Superman is that he is somehow the archetype of himself and... That's it. I mean, he is a superhero. But nothing more. And that makes the tone and the blueprint of his universe incredibly difficult to get. Especially in movies, but in comic books as well.
I mean, he is not a scientist. Not in the way Iron Man, or Reed Richards, or Hank Pym are scientists. In fact, I'd say that if they removed the "super-scientist" component from the stories, very few people would notice the difference. There are some stories in which the writers say that Superman regularly accomplishes incredible scientific discoveries, but that's more or less irrelevant as far as the character is concerned.
But he is not a reporter, either. He works for a newspaper. Most of his cast work for a newspaper. But the Planet looks more like a vague stereotype of a newspaper than anything else, And it's not that we have so much info on his journalistic skills, his articles, what kind of themes he writes about, etc. If I had to compare Daredevil books in which his job as a lawyer plays a pivotal role and Superman adventures in which Clark's job is integral to story development, well...
And so on. And on. And on. Basically there's plenty of stories in which Superman acts as a reporter, or a scientist, or a soldier, or.. Whatever. But it's never really presented as a fundamental trait. And that makes the direction of the character incredibly vague. Heck, he's not even the Champion of the Oppressed. He has been for a handful of stories, mostly when comic books were more naive and simplistic and... That's it. I'd say that for most of his career Superman has been mostly a defender of American upper-middle class values, with little or no influence to the world he lives in.

People just hear "alien" and automatically tune out because, well, how dare a foreigner be relatable.

I am not entire sure of what you mean here, but - if I get it right - I have never seen such occurrence happen among my personal acquaintances in real life, nor I have seen or heard this type of criticism occur on a regular basis among people who are not interested in Superman.
Generally speaking, the problem with Superman among readers who are not interested in him are of entirely different nature. And it's not that they have no reason to have such an opinion. I mean, when readers come up with the old "Superman is a boy scout" thing I see what they are talking about. Not all of them maybe, but it's not a criticism without reason. If DC relaunched him with stronger, more identifiable traits, maybe it could work. But it would require time, efforts and creative freedom; and they should open to the possibility of renouncing some specific features of the character and replacing them with new ones.
Just an example - if they used the first 2 issues of Birthright as a basis for a Superman relaunch, it could work. But - if they were really coherent - the character should be way more political and anti-establishment than he has ever been. Because I find it hard to think that a reporter so strongly interested in civil war in Africa would NOT take any political position in regard to Western world. And at this point we would have a character who wouldn't really resemble what we have had for decades. And, even I don't think that it would be a bad thing, it won't happen anytime soon.

[Agent Z]

Well Myskin was talking about taking a stand: Not killing your opponents is one of those. People grill Batman for that stance all the time, let them grill Superman for it. But Supes should be against it because
1. If he’s willing to kill judiciously he could 100% end most of his fights immediately. None of his Rogues except maybe Zod, Doomsday, and Bizarro could survive against a Supes that’s willing to use lethal force whenever he feels like it.

Well any rogue outside of those three wouldn’t be that much of a threat and could be more easily stopped without lethal force.

2. Supes is a vigilante. Him killing people when he feels justified is not something I can just accept. There’s a huge movement right now about law enforcement using lethal force whenever they feel like it in America, I don’t want Supes getting painted as a Supercop

It’s quite strange to draw the line at killing and be perfectly fine with all the other stuff vigilantes do, some of which are less justifiable than killing depending on the situation.
And frankly, if Superman is going to intervene in crimes, he’s already a “Supercop”. I doubt the people protesting the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor care about Superman killing a genocidal alien.
All too often, the anti-killing segment of the fandom is under the impression that those who dislike the rule want Superman to use lethal force as a general solution to all conflict instead of judging it on a case-by-case basis. If there is an argument to be made that Superman killed when it wasn’t necessary fine, but a knee-jerk reaction to every instance of Superman killing isn’t any better.

3. It’s already too ingrained that Supes killing is a bad thing. All the “evil” Superman do it. I doubt you could convince the general audience to accept it for him.

I’m not sure the general audience actually has a problem with Superman killing in the first place. They don’t have a problem when Wonder Woman and Captain America do it and these are the character that are apparently “Superman done right”.

4. He respects all life even the lives of mass murderers. It should be a source of contention within the DCU, but I want him to be steadfast in that principle because I think it has value. There are plenty of people right now who oppose the death penalty, even for absolute monsters. Hell outside of America most first world countries don’t practice it, nor do they give their law enforcement guns.

I oppose the death penalty as well.
That said, I’d be perfectly fine if DC just stopped doing stories about this rule given it always opens up a can of worms every time it’s brought up.

[manofsteel1979]

Aside from the observations Myskin and others have made regarding Superman's cultural relevance or lack therof today in comparison to Batman,there is the practical reality which is there hasn't been a bonafide unqualified hit Superman movie in 40 years. That movie being 1980's Superman II. Superman III was only a modest hit and both IV and the Supergirl film bombed. All of that before Batman's cultural rebirth first in The Frank Miller Dark Knight Returns and Year One and then with Batman 89.

Its also important to note Warner Bros only distributed the Donner era Superman movies and provided some funding,but most of the actual risk and production costs were shouldered by Alexander and Ilya Salkind and with IV, Canon Films. Warners only got the movie rights back fully circa 1992/93.

Warners only got in the business of making Superman movies with Superman Returns,and that was after nearly a decade of development hell and accumulated costs from aborted attempts that the resulting box office ultimately proved way under their expectations. Man of Steel did better and $670 million is nothing to sneeze at,but with the way they were pushing that movie it was clear Warners was hoping to get Avengers level attention and box office homerun but instead got a solid line drive. In a vaccum that could be seen as a minor victory, but in a world where Marvel movies post Avengers are nearly guaranteed 700 million plus , its a hollow one. Especially for a perennial brand such as Superman.

By contrast,since 1989,Batman has pretty much been as close to a sure thing in Hollywood as anything not annointed with the title Star Wars. Even when the franchise hit a low point with Batman and Robin in 97,it still managed to just break even or turn a small profit. Batman Begins box office itself initially wasn't spectacular, it did extremely well on home video and the next two films did over a Billion each. To Warners Batman is their license to print money and really has been for 31 years while Superman,while not a complete box office disaster for them,is just not that level. At least on the big screen. In terms of merchandising, and recognition Superman is still near the top. Translating that to tickets sold,blurays sold and streams tallied is the issue.

From a business standpoint, its not that hard to see why we have had a constant stream of new Batman projects (with the longest gap being 8 years between B&R and Batman Begins,)while Superman seems to stay grounded. Its not because Warners hates Superman and loves Batman. It's basically good business. As fans we don't have to like it. I don't. I wish both Superman and Batman were doing equally well,but it is what it is.

[superduperman]

I think it's much simpler than that: DC just doesn't like Superman all that much. I think they like the money that the merch brings in. But I don't think they care much for the character. When I go into my local Wal-Mart, the DC section of the toy aisle is all Batman toys. Wonder Woman has a movie coming out. They had some action figures of her for about a week before they were all gone. While three rows of Batman merch just sits on the shelf. Maybe occasionally they'll get the McFarlane Superman figure in once in a while but it's usually only one and is gone within two days. Batman is getting yet another reboot while we're three years out from the tenth anniversary or MOS. And still no sequel in sight. A SS game where the JL are the targets? Seriously? This is edgelord nonsense.

Think about it: The only reason we're even getting a TV show is because Greg Berlanti actually listened to fans. So if not for him, we wouldn't be getting anything Superman at all. I've all but completely given up on DC. And if AT&T's plans are what it sounds like they are, I may give up anyway. They're ditching things like Black Label (which was nothing more than an excuse to promote Batman books anyway) and focusing more on kids. That's good but it doesn't sound like they're going to make anything for someone like me anytime soon. So all we have to look forward to as Superman fans is a TV show that will most likely spend more time on his sons than him. Always got to have a gimmick. While Batman fans get:

A new movie

Two new video games

Another TV show (Pennyworth)

Another movie (Flashpoint with TWO Batmen)

Their event books revolving around him (That Joker who Laughs crap or whatever the hell it's called)

Harley Quinn, Harley Quinn, Harley Quinn! All the time!

DC is the Batman company. And everyone else are just his sidekicks. I didn't used to resent Batman but I do now. I'd chalk this up to mismanagement but at every level? Even the movie studios?

Oh, no, my mistake! Batman's getting ANOTHER TV show on HBOMax too! But a Superman movie is "hard to write for". Okay. Brainiac has never been a villain in any of the movies but, sure, he's "hard to write for". Okay. Whatever.

[Frontier]

At this point, I'm not even sure why any superhero, let alone Superman, killing at all in adaptations is a big deal given how often its done.

Superman killing a soldier just doing his job is probably going to raise some eyeballs, even if he is just brainwashed.

[Ascended]

You are probably right. Superman merchandise sells, regardless of WB promoting it, but the movies are not as suscessful, so they just use their resources to promote other properties and make their merchandise sell.

When Superman lunchbox and backpacks stop selling, maybe they will try to positively promote the character, and not just use Superman to promote others.

That's basically it.

If you just look at the returns on most of the Superman stuff from the last few decades, it's not a impressive picture. But those "S" t-shirts still fly off the rack. It would not be wrong of AT&T, looking at this data, to conclude that Superman works as a mascot better than he does as a protagonist. Like Mickey Mouse; Disney doesn't make new Mickey movies, but they put his likeness on everything and it sells. Disney makes big money off the Mouse's likeness for very little effort. AT&T might view Clark the same way.

But it's also possible that AT&T look at the mess WB made of things, and realize that Superman's failures are not a product of the IP, but the way the IP was handled. Like I said, you could come to several different conclusions, depending on how you translate the data, and there's no telling how AT&T will read it until they tell us what their conclusions are.

Now, as far as Myskin's observations go, I don't think he's wrong, exactly, but I don't think he's entirely correct either. I agree completely with his (always well thought out, intelligent) opinion that Superman's reputation gets in the way; people have a very specific idea of what they want from the character, because he's such a big part of our culture everyone is hyper critical, and it is limiting as f*ck. That's a legit problem, because with audience expectation you have to either give them what they want, or give them something they didn't know they wanted...and that is a massive, massive risk with no middle ground; you'll either fall on your face or be a huge hit. And because Clark requires such a huge budget that's an expensive gamble.

But Superman *is* flexible. This is where I disagree with my man Myskin. You can put him in any kind of narrative and make him work while still providing audiences with a Superman they'll recognize and accept. It *is* harder to do with Clark than it is Bruce, because the public's perceptions of Clark are more limiting. But it can be done and I don't think it would actually be that hard. You just gotta think outside of the box a little bit. Everyone WB/DC hire tend to see Superman in the same kind of way, *that's* why they're limited, they're not looking at all the possibilities.

I think where WB kept going wrong is, of course, getting the wrong people. Singer went with Donner nostalgia but Superman Returns was a boring ass movie where the climax is literally Clark fighting a big rock. Nostalgia was never going to carry that film (especially loaded down by the costs of all WB's failed attempts before it). Snyder tried to put Superman and his binary morality in a grounded, gray, real world setting and the dissonance was too extreme. Interesting, but not necessarily entertaining (which is the ultimate, only real goal). But what's the common denominator here? A relatively recognizable, modern real world setting with modern sensibilities with Clark shoved in, like a square peg trying to fit a round hole. And that applies to most of Clark's appearances over the last few decades.

If people demand that Superman be a square peg.....why not change the hole? If Superman must be a character where "there is right and wrong in the universe....." then why are we putting him in settings where that is observably false? Why doesn't anyone put Clark in a setting that fits him, instead of trying to make him fit and/or work within the setting?

Change the world around Superman, and you change what audiences expect from him while also crafting a setting where he can actually provide what audiences want.

I've said this before, but the easiest way to do that? Go back to the Golden Age. Deep down in the DNA of our collective subconscious we still recognize the guy who leaps tall buildings as a viable, "true" Superman, but the period piece setting helps remove the narrative from the expectations of a modern, "real" setting and audiences will be more flexible in what they accept. The classic villains of the Golden Age; nazis, are as evil as Superman is good so the binary morality fits, and audiences always cheer a hero who punches them. The lower power levels means a lower budget and a smaller risk for the studio. Make it fun, action based, and leave the deeper moral questions like "did I abandon my baby momma?" and "Do people deserve to be saved?" out of it. Give us Indiana Jones with super powers beating up unsympathetic nazi villains and you've got a movie that'll be an easy slam dunk.

Alternatively? AT&T/WB/DC could just decide to make Superman for kids. That solves a lot of the same problems and a Pixar style animated Superman film could avoid a lot of the problems the live action films aimed at adults come across.

And there's other ways to go about it, but I think the key to success is the setting and tone.

[Ra-El]

It's true that Superman is iconic - iconic as in "recognizable" - but that's not necessarily a good thing in terms of what kind of adaptations we could expect, or even whether we could expect any adaptations. As a character, he is so held back by the common perception people have of him that finding something interesting for him to do is basically impossible.
It's incredible how many people fail to see that one of the main points of strength of Batman is not that he is "dark", but rather that he is incredibly flexible in terms of mood. You can get noir Batman with TAS, hardboiled Batman, happy-go-lucky Batman with Brave and the Bold (look at that cartoon and tell that it's not 100% sillier and "happier" than anything ever done with Superman in, I don't know, 30 years?), even cyberpunk Batman with Batman Beyond. Yes, of course, some adaptations can fail (even if it happens VERY rarely - I mean, The Batman 2004 cartoon was generally pretty forgettable, but it had 5 seasons and a direct-to-DVD movie, so not exactly a flop). But the point is - they can always reinvent him and (unless they do a really poor job) he will always be relatable to a degree.

On the other hand, Superman can be just Superman. I mean, sometimes they tried to change the mood of the world around him to make him a bit edgier, but they never did it in a really satisfying way. The main problem with Zack Snyder is that in MOS, or BvS, or JL Superman himself seems to be completely out of place. On the one hand you have Snyder's grey world with a constant warlike atmosphere everywhere and a noir mood; and, even if Snyder will never be as good as Michael Mann or David Fincher, somehow it works. But then you have this flying guy with perfectly slicked back hair, a cape and a forced smile and some very generic view on what the world should be like, and it's like, uh? There's always something incoherent in those movies. Everything Superman does looks or sound fake. Maybe the problem is the actor (and boy, is Cavill flat and inexpressive) or maybe Snyder is not good at giving actors instructions (Batfleck has similar problems, to be fair), but it's as if he was a puppet rather than a real character.

So... Would those movies be better with a brighter colors and more smiles? IMHO absolutely not. If anything, it would make Superman even more incoherent. Because - again - I think that Snyder's world somehow makes sense. Without Superman in it, MOS could be the story of brave reporter Lois Lane fighting an alien invasion, and maybe it would be a better movie. Putting a brighter Superman in MOS would be more or less like putting candy bears on a grilled steak with bacon. To make Superman really work in the Snyderverse, they should have made him rougher and gruffier - maybe a more optimistic version of Zod. Maybe the movie would have worked. But at one point the character wouldn't have resembled Superman anymore and fans would have rejected him.

Basically Superman is at the center of an unsolvable contradiction. On the one hand, everybody knows - more or less - what Superman looks and sounds like. Because yes, he's iconic and recognizable. We all know the iconic images of Superman in mid-air from Superman #01, him making the kryptonite chains explode, etc. And - if you are a reader - maybe you have also heard some of his mottos, like the one about right and wrong in the universe ("There is a right and a wrong in this universe. And that distinction is not hard to make", or something like that). But the problem is that to make a movie or a comic book you have to implement these features in a real story. Possibly a compelling one. And at that point everything crumbles. Because Superman's ethics is very generic (I mean, even if Maggin himself wrote it and he's one of the definitive Superman writers, that motto about right and wrong is INCREDIBLY easy to refute) and depicting a character indulging in physical prowess becomes boring very quickly (a character constantly punching or fighting someone is boring after a while too, unless the director is George Miller). Basically you have to get rid of some of the iconic elements and build something completely new. But A- You have to very good at it and B- The new version of the character is always - ALWAYS - at risk of being rejected. Am I the only one who remembers the readers' ridiculous OUTRAGE when Superman renounced his American citizenship?

Basically, you have an icon which is not really a character anymore. So in order to make him a character in a story again, you have to make him less iconic. And there is another major problem - in real life superheroes don't exist. I mean, characters who are good-natured and popular but - at the same time - so physically powerful that they could single-handedly decide the fate of a single nation in the blink of an eye. Basically, no one in the entire world resembles Superman. And that's a huge problem in terms of relatability.

You could argue that not even super-soldiers or masked vigilantes exist, and that's true. But as far as The Avengers and concerned, the filmmakers have been generally VERY skillful at creating around them the same atmosphere of a spy movie. They are not superheroes, but rather a military squad. And this means that they sometimes they don't agree on what to do, their actions have strong political consequences etc.. I mean, it's not that the Avengers are realistic. But the dynamics of their world are very easy to get and interesting to follow, it's something everyone has already seen in movies like Mission Impossible or James Bond. So when they go cosmic with Thanos and infinity gauntlets it's easier to accept it, because you already have a pretty good idea of how the team works from the previous movies and Thanos is basically a cosmic terrorist. If the Avengers had been more generic, without being constantly at odds with each others - basically just superheroes fighting an alien invasion - they wouldn't be the Avengers and they wouldn't be as interesting. They would have been the Justice League. Snydercut or not.

As for Batman, well, besides him being more flexible than Superman, you mostly get the impression that the world around him is basically a more or less exaggerated version of a detective novel. I mean, look at that Reeves' The Batman trailer and tell me that it's not a Fincher psychological thriller movie. With a psychotic detective as the main character, he just wears a costume instead of a trench. I mean, again, it's not "realistic" but that doesn't mean that a casual viewer doesn't understand the rules of the game just from the trailer and doesn't accept them. Reeves' Batman is as realistic as The Silence of the Lambs, in which one of the characters is basically an almost omniscient version of Dracula, just without fangs.

Quite frankly, if you'd like to understand what's wrong with Superman you shouldn't look further than Maggin's Must There Be a Superman. It's a very good story, but it works ONLY if you are already into Superman's world. In order to understand it, you have to accept everything about the character - his powers, his approach, his ethics - BEFORE reading it. It's very derivative. But it doesn't work as an introduction to the character. IMHO in order to make a Superman movie (or a comic book relaunch) work you should go way more straightforward and make the character work and evolve and be relatable from the very first moment he appears, and that's something no one has done in, I don't know, more than 30 years?

IMHO the only good attempt at making Superman work as a character without renouncing his mindset but without making him a boy-scout has been in Superman: Birthright. I am referring ONLY to the first two issues - Supes a reporter in Africa. Everything becomes more predictable after that and the final issues of the miniseries are a bit all over the place, but those first two issues would be an excellent starting point. Even if it would take a LOT of work, skill and creative freedom to build something from there, and I really don't see it happening anytime soon.

Yet, Marvel made Captain America work, his worldview and personality is pretty much the same as Superman's. The screenwriters from Infinity War and Endgame have said they could make Superman work. Marvel also made Captain Marvel work, the character is even getting a second movie, and CM in the movies is more powerful than any Superman in movies or tv, more powerful than Superman is in the comics currently.

MoS biggest flaw is that it was followed by BvS, instead of the a MoS 2, that could have solidified the character. Again take Captain America as an example, his first movie didn't make that much money, less than MoS I believe, but instead of a BvS he got Avengers and that made all the difference.

The problem with Superman, is that for the last 20 years he didn't have a really good movie, TV show or game. The character have only mediocre adaptations at best.

[yohyoi]

Superman killing a soldier just doing his job is probably going to raise some eyeballs, even if he is just brainwashed.

That was hardcore. That poor soldier was screaming for his life until Supes lazered him to atoms and ashes. He cremated the guy for his poor family. Homelander would have been proud.

"I WILL LAZER EVERY FUCKING ONE OF YOU!!!"

[Vakanai]

That's basically it.

If you just look at the returns on most of the Superman stuff from the last few decades, it's not a impressive picture. But those "S" t-shirts still fly off the rack. It would not be wrong of AT&T, looking at this data, to conclude that Superman works as a mascot better than he does as a protagonist. Like Mickey Mouse; Disney doesn't make new Mickey movies, but they put his likeness on everything and it sells. Disney makes big money off the Mouse's likeness for very little effort. AT&T might view Clark the same way.

Mickey Mouse might not have any movies, but he's had quite a few cartoons for the last 20 years. Especially the past decade. I mean sure they're all for really little kids, but I think it would be good for Superman to at least get some cartoons for that age group.

And Superman does have all these recent DTV movies. That's not nothing.

Look, for some reason people like to make excuses for why Superman can't work, as if it can explain why we don't have great Superman movies. But after Aquaman I think we should just acknowledge it as bullcrap. Superman doesn't work because he's been mismanaged, end of story. All he needs is a James Wan type like Aquaman got who gets the character and can make a fun movie, and for the executives to approve it. Done. That's it, simple as that. Obviously not easy, practically have to get the stars to align just right to do it, but simple. Everything else is just a bid to justify the bad luck we've had as fans. There's nothing wrong with Superman, never was.

[SuperX]

Mickey Mouse might not have any movies, but he's had quite a few cartoons for the last 20 years. Especially the past decade. I mean sure they're all for really little kids, but I think it would be good for Superman to at least get some cartoons for that age group.

And Superman does have all these recent DTV movies. That's not nothing.

Look, for some reason people like to make excuses for why Superman can't work, as if it can explain why we don't have great Superman movies. But after Aquaman I think we should just acknowledge it as bullcrap. Superman doesn't work because he's been mismanaged, end of story. All he needs is a James Wan type like Aquaman got who gets the character and can make a fun movie, and for the executives to approve it. Done. That's it, simple as that. Obviously not easy, practically have to get the stars to align just right to do it, but simple. Everything else is just a bid to justify the bad luck we've had as fans. There's nothing wrong with Superman, never was.

I agree with this post

[Ascended]

Mickey Mouse might not have any movies, but he's had quite a few cartoons for the last 20 years. Especially the past decade. I mean sure they're all for really little kids, but I think it would be good for Superman to at least get some cartoons for that age group.

And Superman does have all these recent DTV movies. That's not nothing.

Look, for some reason people like to make excuses for why Superman can't work, as if it can explain why we don't have great Superman movies. But after Aquaman I think we should just acknowledge it as bullcrap. Superman doesn't work because he's been mismanaged, end of story. All he needs is a James Wan type like Aquaman got who gets the character and can make a fun movie, and for the executives to approve it. Done. That's it, simple as that. Obviously not easy, practically have to get the stars to align just right to do it, but simple. Everything else is just a bid to justify the bad luck we've had as fans. There's nothing wrong with Superman, never was.

And that is basically what I said in that post (which I didn't realize was as long as it is).

WB has screwed up. And people's perceptions are a limitation on what you can get away with. But there's nothing wrong with Clark.

The bit about what AT&T decide to do? Doesn't matter if there's a "problem" with Superman, if AT&T *believe* there is. I'd like to think they're going to be wiser and smarter than WB have been about the character....but we won't know until we know.