Why not Superman Retro movies?

[kalai]

So Warner Bros often times claim that superman is outdated or so on. Which I personally don't agree.
But then why don't they just make retro movies of superman, that seem like a perfectly logical conclusion.
Think about it, Ready Player One was a retro, It was a retro, Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman 1984 are both retro.
Honestly they could do a 1980s retro as homage to the Donner movies,
or even better, do a retro back to 1938 and show the decades of history for the man of steel.
Food for thoughts.

[Laufeyson]

So Warner Bros often times claim that superman is outdated or so on. Which I personally don't agree.
But then why don't they just make retro movies of superman, that seem like a perfectly logical conclusion.
Think about it, Ready Player One was a retro, It was a retro, Wonder Woman and Wonder Woman 1984 are both retro.
Honestly they could do a 1980s retro as homage to the Donner movies,
or even better, do a retro back to 1938 and show the decades of history for the man of steel.
Food for thoughts.

How about mix of retro and modern in an interesting way like the first issue of Miracleman, where we see a cartoon or black and white cheesy reimagination of Donner's Superman with the story ended in Superman smiling in a very disturbing way and then flash forward to modern era where the future is jaded and ruled by villains a la Kingdom Come. So it's mix of retro and modern with Kingdom Come and Miracleman.

[Ascended]

I've been saying for years now, that the way to save Superman in cinema is to do a Golden Age period piece.

Making the film a period piece would solve a lot of problems; you can include social commentary and have Superman actually say something worth hearing without making it a direct condemnation of the current political climate. Setting it in the past would help audiences separate themselves a bit from their expectations and signal that this should be viewed as "a" Superman, and not what they consider to be "the" Superman, helping avoid some of the baggage that Superman's name now carries with it in the social subconscious. It'd help keep the budget down, making it easier for the film to churn out a respectable profit. Focusing specifically on one particular era, rather than trying to capture the entirety of the character, means a tighter, more well defined personality, motivations, etc. Placing the film in a more "rough and tumble" era means Clark can be more rough and tumble, with less demand that he be some kind of saint.

And there's tons of quality source material to mine, from the original comics to the radio serial to the newspaper strips to more modern revisits like Smashes the Klan, Morrison's Action, and Tom DeHaven's "It's Superman!" novel.

Such a film, assuming it's handled well, could easily end up being the most popular Super film to date. It'd also likely be wildly popular as a big budget HBO show, which would be my preference between the two.

[kalai]

I've been saying for years now, that the way to save Superman in cinema is to do a Golden Age period piece.

Making the film a period piece would solve a lot of problems; you can include social commentary and have Superman actually say something worth hearing without making it a direct condemnation of the current political climate. Setting it in the past would help audiences separate themselves a bit from their expectations and signal that this should be viewed as "a" Superman, and not what they consider to be "the" Superman, helping avoid some of the baggage that Superman's name now carries with it in the social subconscious. It'd help keep the budget down, making it easier for the film to churn out a respectable profit. Focusing specifically on one particular era, rather than trying to capture the entirety of the character, means a tighter, more well defined personality, motivations, etc. Placing the film in a more "rough and tumble" era means Clark can be more rough and tumble, with less demand that he be some kind of saint.

And there's tons of quality source material to mine, from the original comics to the radio serial to the newspaper strips to more modern revisits like Smashes the Klan, Morrison's Action, and Tom DeHaven's "It's Superman!" novel.

Such a film, assuming it's handled well, could easily end up being the most popular Super film to date. It'd also likely be wildly popular as a big budget HBO show, which would be my preference between the two.

Exactly, and for golden age, we can have superman go after corrupt government officials and so on.
Also, I think if it was set in the golden age or silver age, we don't need a end of the world thing, it can be more focused on the superman character.

[manwhohaseverything]

Making the film a period piece would solve a lot of problems; you can include social commentary and have Superman actually say something worth hearing without making it a direct condemnation of the current political climate.

I think you don't need a period piece for that. You just need a fantastical world and allegorical mode of story telling. Just say superman's world is not "our" world but very very very similar,Yet different . Moreover, i think depending on the age demographics that stories targets, certain stories of the old can ruffle some feather even if its set in 1938.

[JAK]

I've been saying for years now, that the way to save Superman in cinema is to do a Golden Age period piece.

Making the film a period piece would solve a lot of problems; you can include social commentary and have Superman actually say something worth hearing without making it a direct condemnation of the current political climate. Setting it in the past would help audiences separate themselves a bit from their expectations and signal that this should be viewed as "a" Superman, and not what they consider to be "the" Superman, helping avoid some of the baggage that Superman's name now carries with it in the social subconscious. It'd help keep the budget down, making it easier for the film to churn out a respectable profit. Focusing specifically on one particular era, rather than trying to capture the entirety of the character, means a tighter, more well defined personality, motivations, etc. Placing the film in a more "rough and tumble" era means Clark can be more rough and tumble, with less demand that he be some kind of saint.

And there's tons of quality source material to mine, from the original comics to the radio serial to the newspaper strips to more modern revisits like Smashes the Klan, Morrison's Action, and Tom DeHaven's "It's Superman!" novel.

Such a film, assuming it's handled well, could easily end up being the most popular Super film to date. It'd also likely be wildly popular as a big budget HBO show, which would be my preference between the two.

I'm telling you, we just need to get my movie finished and made - we'd have all this, and modern prep too.

[manwhohaseverything]

As long as superman runs on electric cable grid, clings on wall, punch beams and godzilla ... Etc. I will be happy.

[Ascended]

Exactly, and for golden age, we can have superman go after corrupt government officials and so on.
Also, I think if it was set in the golden age or silver age, we don't need a end of the world thing, it can be more focused on the superman character.

For a Golden Age film, I wouldn't make the threat any bigger than, say, Ultra-Humanite (in his albino gorilla body) or Metallo. Definitely no "end of the world" stuff.

Maybe for the end credit scene you have Brainiac's ship descend on Metropolis, if that's the direction you want a potential sequel to go in. But even if you wanted to follow Morrison's footprints like that, I'd keep it to "Brainiac bottles a city for his collection" and ignore the "then blows up the rest of the planet" stuff, so even Brainiac is only technically a city-wide threat.

But, you are right that it might be too grim for people.

For right now. Down the road a bit, yeah they could try a more grim type of approach and there's so much potential to things like Kingdom Come, but after the last few films I think audiences need something simple and stupid and easily consumed. It's not that your idea is bad or wouldn't work, it's that I don't think audiences would get it.

I think you don't need a period piece for that. You just need a fantastical world and allegorical mode of story telling.

It's true, allegory can serve the same purpose, but I think there's a little something extra when it's us....even a "us" from eighty years ago. But allegory is a powerful narrative tool, you're totally right. I mean, Star Trek is built entirely on the concept and it could/does work for Clark as well. But just like with Laufeyson's idea, I think *right now* using a period piece rather than allegory (and yeah there's not much difference when you boil it down) would hit a little harder, in a good way. But you could go either way with it. Clark's a versatile character and can fit into nearly any genre or tone you can think of, a sci-fi allegory film would work nearly as well as a period piece....but it'd also cost a lot more, which is one of the reasons I want a Golden Age project; easier for WB to make money and consider it a win.

I'm telling you, we just need to get my movie finished and made - we'd have all this, and modern prep too.

Well get your ass in gear my friend, and finish it up!

And yeah, a period piece that still says "racism is bad" or whatever social commentary you want is still going to get hate from certain corners. F*ck them. Those are the people Superman *should* piss off. But a movie set today that says "racism is bad" will be seen as an attack on the current administration (whether it is or not) while a period piece won't (unless you make it blindingly obvious that's your intent), and nobody wants all the discussion about the movie to revolve around whether it insults some modern, thin-skinned politician.

As for whether a period piece film would "fix the overall problem/s" no, it won't. There's no single solution and easy fix here. WB will still have no idea how to handle the character as a whole. But what it will do (in theory) is give Superman a clear box office win (which he needs) and expose audiences to a wider concept of who and what Superman is (which they need).

[Zero Hunter]

I've been saying for years now, that the way to save Superman in cinema is to do a Golden Age period piece.

Making the film a period piece would solve a lot of problems; you can include social commentary and have Superman actually say something worth hearing without making it a direct condemnation of the current political climate. Setting it in the past would help audiences separate themselves a bit from their expectations and signal that this should be viewed as "a" Superman, and not what they consider to be "the" Superman, helping avoid some of the baggage that Superman's name now carries with it in the social subconscious. It'd help keep the budget down, making it easier for the film to churn out a respectable profit. Focusing specifically on one particular era, rather than trying to capture the entirety of the character, means a tighter, more well defined personality, motivations, etc. Placing the film in a more "rough and tumble" era means Clark can be more rough and tumble, with less demand that he be some kind of saint.

And there's tons of quality source material to mine, from the original comics to the radio serial to the newspaper strips to more modern revisits like Smashes the Klan, Morrison's Action, and Tom DeHaven's "It's Superman!" novel.

Such a film, assuming it's handled well, could easily end up being the most popular Super film to date. It'd also likely be wildly popular as a big budget HBO show, which would be my preference between the two.

The problem is that would appeal to such a limited demographic. I know there are a lot of die hard golden age lovers on this sub, but by and large you guys are very tiny minority when it comes to Superman fans. The general public would hate a SJW Superman and rip the movie to shreds.

[manwhohaseverything]

The problem is that would appeal to such a limited demographic. I know there are a lot of die hard golden age lovers on this sub, but by and large you guys are very tiny minority when it comes to Superman fans. The general public would hate a SJW Superman and rip the movie to shreds.

It depends on your definition of an sjw. He is working class guy fighting a neverending battle. I am sure that has resonance amongst any.

[SiegePerilous02]

The problem is that would appeal to such a limited demographic. I know there are a lot of die hard golden age lovers on this sub, but by and large you guys are very tiny minority when it comes to Superman fans. The general public would hate a SJW Superman and rip the movie to shreds.

If anybody is ripping it to shreds for that reason, it's just gonna be the same people who didn't want women and black people in Star Wars or hated on Captain Marvel because it had a woman as the lead and didn't have any valid critiques of the movies (and there are some) beyond those. They're assholes and they don't matter.

Otherwise, you overestimate how much the general audience would prefer your take. They don't debate the different versions the way we do, and will ultimately turn up for anything as long as the right people are behind the camera.

[Ascended]

How about mix of retro and modern in an interesting way like the first issue of Miracleman, where we see a cartoon or black and white cheesy reimagination of Donner's Superman with the story ended in Superman smiling in a very disturbing way and then flash forward to modern era where the future is jaded and ruled by villains a la Kingdom Come. So it's mix of retro and modern with Kingdom Come and Miracleman.

As a story I think that's a quality idea. But is right now the proper time for a Superman movie where he essentially fails? Kingdom Come works great because that's the whole premise; what happens when the heroes (Superman specifically) give up and abandon their ideals? But it's also a cynical deconstruction and I feel like we need something more clearly optimistic after Snyder's films. MoS *is* an optimistic movie, but you have to look closely to see it, and most audiences just won't do that.

[Laufeyson]

As a story I think that's a quality idea. But is right now the proper time for a Superman movie where he essentially fails? Kingdom Come works great because that's the whole premise; what happens when the heroes (Superman specifically) give up and abandon their ideals? But it's also a cynical deconstruction and I feel like we need something more clearly optimistic after Snyder's films. MoS *is* an optimistic movie, but you have to look closely to see it, and most audiences just won't do that.

I believe that's because we already saturated with the run of a mill Superhero story in Marvel, DC and WB should show what Superman is to them, but in a more unconventional way of thinking. But, you are right that it might be too grim for people.

[kalai]

I believe that's because we already saturated with the run of a mill Superhero story in Marvel, DC and WB should show what Superman is to them, but in a more unconventional way of thinking. But, you are right that it might be too grim for people.

I honestly think Supreme could be a better fit than Miracleman,
Suprme actually had all these classic silver age adventures, then he returns to modern age,
but I don't know how the meta commentary material fly with the cinema audience.

[Laufeyson]

I honestly think Supreme could be a better fit than Miracleman,
Suprme actually had all these classic silver age adventures, then he returns to modern age,
but I don't know how the meta commentary material fly with the cinema audience.

Lol, you are right on that. Supreme could be a better fit, but Supreme's beauty is that you are bringing Silver Age adventures in Modern Age with meta-commentary at the situation of Superhero comic. I think the best approach would be Superman: Secret Identity as a meta contextual story from Golden, Silver, to Modern.