What is your ideal direction for the next Superman movie?

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

While I wouldn’t necessarily mind another origin movie, I strongly doubt general audiences will. So I think the next Superman reboot should be as big and crazy as possible. The movie should be an adventure story that takes him from War World to Bizzarro World to the bottle city of Kandor. I still want some Clark Kent bits, but maybe focus more on that on the sequels. First of all get a charismatic, charming actor as Superman. I don’t care if he’s white, black or purple. After Chris Reeve most of the Kal-Els we’ve gotten have looked the part, but turned in wooden performances. Lois and a Jimmy Olsen who isn’t dead, should be around but save characters like Kara for sequels. Lex, also should be saved for sequels. Zod is kinda played out in general. Make the villain Mongul or even Mxy. Audiences want new content. If they see trailers of a run of the mill Superman origin with Lex as the big bad, set entirely in Metropolis. They’re going to yawn and watch Eternals 3 or Captain Marvel 5 or whatever else comes out in the future.

[Adekis]

I can't believe I'm arguing against rebooting the character to be more like my beautiful son, New 52 Superman, but, well, I think that the more often you reboot a character, the more likely a character is to be rebooted in the future. I don't want Superman movie continuity to be as flimsy and constantly rebooted as Superman is in the comics, and I am just plain damn sick of origin stories!

So that being said, my ideal is a soft reboot that uses what came before in Cavill's movies as a sort of bedrock, not needing to stay beholden to absolutely everything that happened, but without explicitly drawing attention to any contradictions the way a hard reboot would. I'd want to keep the same basic cast of Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Rebecca Buller, and of course, Diane Lane.

Keep the basis of characterization that Lois had in Man of Steel and Batman v Superman, because frankly I can't find literally any fault with it, maybe alone out of all the Superman characters. She's a powerhouse, she's emotionally vulnerable, but extremely tough, she's a little bitchy, she's a spear of resolve striking straight to the heart of truth. She's also us, in her trust and understanding of Superman. Maybe upgrade Perry to a more traditionally heroic version of the character than the one who butted heads with Lois and Clark previously. In-universe maybe you could posit that seeing Superman returned to life inspired him to be less cynical, but ultimately it doesn't matter, the real reason is because a Perry who blocks Lois and Clark's best impulses at every turn in the name of realpolitik is interesting, but not conducive for a more lighthearted story.

Clark Kent, keeping with the most important and best part of his Man of Steel and BvS portrayal, would be heavily invested in the rights of the vulnerable and the disenfranchised, a critical eye on the systemic failures of society. I imagine he writes and speaks a lot like the novelist, vlogger and activist John Green: supremely earnest, but still able to spice up a lot of his writing with a fundamental sense of humor while closing in on the serious issues. That said, give him more of that Dean Cain sardonic wit and wry humor to make him come across as less mopey than he did to general audiences in the previous movies, and also emphasize his effortless morality. Don't worry about making him cool, just let him be moral and earnest and sardonic. Superman is cool enough for both of them.

Superman (Kal to his friends), by contrast, should be more modeled after the way he comported himself in Justice League, or in a cartoon like Justice League Action, with a little All-Star Superman thrown in as well. He's undeniably badass. He's effortlessly cool without ever really trying to be. I'd also emphasize Superman's scientific prowess by having him work more with STAR Labs, decoding Kryptonian tech, for both the betterment of humanity, and for his own archaeological drive to discover and understand his dead culture. He's a classic Renaissance man. He'd work with people like Dr. Klyburn, Dr. Stone, maybe John H. Irons, to create working Phantom Drives for FTL travel, to create medicine based on Kryptonian biology, etc. I'd also want a lot of emphasis on both Superman's Siegel-Classic sense of humor in a crisis, and his ability to think fast on his feet while performing a feat. There's a scene in Iron Man 3 where Tony has to catch like ten people falling out of a plane, and if he fails to catch any of them, it's going to be a tragedy. I want at least two scenes like that in whatever kind of Superman movie they make next time, regardless of other content.

That STAR Labs idea sort of leads into the next thing I'd like to see: Silver Agey stuff on a contemporary Hollywood scale. I think it'd really set the Superman franchise apart in the world of super-hero movies to see our boy Kal entering the Phantom Zone and coming back with a teenage girl to nurse back to health, or seeing him fight a giant gorilla with laser eyes, or hearing him casually mention that he dated a mermaid in college with no context at all... These could be a lot of fun, and could diversify the super-hero movie genre as a whole, and set apart Superman specifically as the biggest and craziest of all of them.

Also, in a world where most super-hero movies end with the villain dead, including Superman movies, I want him to take his foes in alive, even talk them down. Not because I'm a "No Kill Rule" diehard - I'm generally opposed to it in fact - but because I think it'd be unique among movie super-heroes, and because it'd add a new dimension to Superman's stories specifically.

I've got ideas for specific plots, but I more wanted to focus on mood and characters as far as "direction" goes.

TL;DR, I don't want them to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most reboots in movies and comics alike don't need to happen if an actor didn't actually quit or age out of a role, and even then there are ways around it, like with James Bond. All the Superman actors from the last three movies have been stellar, and a nice heavy, shouted-from-the-rooftops shift in tone and emphasis could do a lot more for the character than another fumbling reboot where they try the same damn things in only a slightly different way.

[Vordan]

How can we use Man of Steel and BvS as a foundation when they’re both widely controversial and in BvS’s case both deeply unpopular and non canon given that WW is retconning out the walking away part and Battison is straight up jettisoning the Snyder Batman story?

It sucks that Cavill never got to be Superman but what’s done is done. Batman is getting a reboot. Superman should get one as well, because any attempt to salvage the Snyder Superman is going to be swimming upstream.

Not that it matters I guess since this just what we want to happen and Cavill is clearly never being Superman again.

[Doctor Know]

How can we use Man of Steel and BvS as a foundation when they’re both widely controversial and in BvS’s case both deeply unpopular and non canon given that WW is retconning out the walking away part and Battison is straight up jettisoning the Snyder Batman story?

It sucks that Cavill never got to be Superman but what’s done is done. Batman is getting a reboot. Superman should get one as well, because any attempt to salvage the Snyder Superman is going to be swimming upstream.

Not that it matters I guess since this just what we want to happen and Cavill is clearly never being Superman again.

Can't say they're non-canon. Since JL reaffirmed that Wondy was still MIA since WW1. Obviously things changed, but Patty seems to be taking things in her own direction. Shazam had references to MOS. As for Matt Reeves and Robert Pattinson, their Batman seems to be in the same vein as Joaquin Phoenix's Joker. AU/side story.


As for taking Supes forward with MOS/BvS/JL as a foundation, just do what people do in the comics. Move forward in a new direction and tell new stories. It worked for the Marvel (see Captain America 2-3, Thor 3 and Logan), it worked for Mission Impossible (3-6), worked for Fast and the Furious (5-9), it can work for Superman.

Starting from the beginning, you risk losing the audiences' interest. The Spider-Man problem. How many times do we need to see Uncle Ben die or have a Spidey film end with a funeral, to get that Peter's life sucks?


Tell a new story, you take the IP in a new direction. Like I said, you can introduce Kara, John Henry, Maggie Sawyer, Dan Turpin, Brainaic, Darkseid, the Legion. You start from the beginning. We have to see Krypton explode again, Clark raised again, Clark become Superman again, Clark meet the DP crew again, and Clark save the world (presumably not a real estate plan by Luthor or alien invasion by Zod) again. With JJ and Vaughn being in talks and expressing interest in making another Donner inspired film. And especially JJ's penchant for shot for shot/line for line remakes of other people's films. That would be a huge detriment to the character.


Key is, tell a new story and you'll have a new direction. Starting over means, starting over. Even Sony didn't do that with MCU Spider-Man in 2016. And they've had 3 different actors play Spidey within 10 years of each other on the big screen.

[Adekis]

As for taking Supes forward with MOS/BvS/JL as a foundation, just do what people do in the comics. Move forward in a new direction and tell new stories. It worked for the Marvel (see Captain America 2-3, Thor 3 and Logan), it worked for Mission Impossible (3-6), worked for Fast and the Furious (5-9), it can work for Superman.

Starting from the beginning, you risk losing the audiences' interest. The Spider-Man problem. How many times do we need to see Uncle Ben die or have a Spidey film end with a funeral, to get that Peter's life sucks?

Tell a new story, you take the IP in a new direction. Like I said, you can introduce Kara, John Henry, Maggie Sawyer, Dan Turpin, Brainaic, Darkseid, the Legion. You start from the beginning. We have to see Krypton explode again, Clark raised again, Clark become Superman again, Clark meet the DP crew again, and Clark save the world (presumably not a real estate plan by Luthor or alien invasion by Zod) again. With JJ and Vaughn being in talks and expressing interest in making another Donner inspired film. And especially JJ's penchant for shot for shot/line for line remakes of other people's films. That would be a huge detriment to the character.

Key is, tell a new story and you'll have a new direction. Starting over means, starting over. Even Sony didn't do that with MCU Spider-Man in 2016. And they've had 3 different actors play Spidey within 10 years of each other on the big screen.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. "Tell a new story and you'll have a new direction."

I'm worried about Reboot Fatigue™, and I'm convinced that the more you reboot a character, the more likely that character is to be rebooted in the future. Like, you know, like Spider-Man. Starting over hurts the franchise. Especially if it's another Donner tribute, like you said. If Superman as a franchise is going to move forward, we need a version of the character to supplant the one from over forty whole years ago in the collective unconsciousness.

Superman needs a new direction, maybe an aggressively new direction, but keeping the Perfectly Good Actors™ we've got could give a sense of consistency that anchors the new direction and prevents Reboot Fatigue™, while allowing, fundamentally, a movie without much tonally in common with its predecessors.

I'm not worried about Canon. Canon's a fake idea made up by insane early 20th century Sherlock Holmes fans as a satirical joke. A broad sense of consistency is more important than a strict canon, and Superman can use that.

When WW overrode Diana's line about what she did after the War from BvS, hardly anyone cared. Zack Snyder himself signed off on that. I'm not even sure if WW84 is going to fit well between WW and BvS at all, and if it doesn't, that's fine. It didn't need a whole reboot to do that, and neither does Superman need a reboot. The Superman franchise can keep its Perfectly Good Actors™, avoid a needless reboot, and still take a new direction, 100%!

[Vakanai]

Soft reboot, no origin movie, but ditch Cavill for a new actor and largely ignore the Snyder films. Just recast and move on but don't hard reboot it. And the tone should be a lot more fun and lighthearted. Basically think like Aquaman, Wonder Woman, Shazam, all Marvel movies by Marvel Studios ever, you get the idea. Fun movie that people want to see but still respects Superman.

[Nelliebly]

Full reboot. Give me this guy:
Attachment 86141

Make him Latino if you’re worried about diversity. Main villain is Metallo and General Sam Lane. The Kents are dead and Clark is working at the Daily Star trying to expose corruption in Metropolis. Jimmy Olsen is his best friend and roommate and Lois is his rival at the Daily Planet. Clark is dating Lana who moved with him to Metropolis and is working for STAR Labs. Clark is at his Golden Age power levels (keep the budget low).

Post-Credi scene is Brainiac mentally speaking to Metallo and planning to come collect the Kryptonian.

This is a great way to get a lot of women to hate your movie and WB can’t afford to do that as women are a key demo with Superman (always have been) and especially in 2019.

The romance with Lana has a ticking clock and doesn’t belong in Metropolis. Female viewers have literally no desire to see love interests pit against each other in 2019. And we don’t need to guess about this—we know. Smallville made it super clear that viewers—especially female ones—have virtually no patience anymore for overextending a romance that is long past it’s expiration date while playing fast and loose with Lois. Smallville tried it, it failed, they had to course correct. Women hate it.

There is also virtually no excuse in 2019 to set Lois up as a “rival” in an adversarial role vs. making her someone he looks up to who becomes his partner. Could it work? Maybe. With female writers at the helm.

Either way, trying to push Lana as the love interest in Metropolis while treating Lois as an adversary is a great way to get a lot of women to hate your movie. Women have zero patience for that kind of revolving door love interest crap in 2019.

[Nelliebly]

Ensemble film with characters that Superman has confirmed to have inspired. Like Ray Palmer, John Henry Irons, Kimiyo Hoshi, others at Star Labs etc.

Trying to spin gold with the Daily Planet crew is a lost cause. *See Superman Returns. And waxing poetic about the idea of making a difference, while never actually making one, is DOA. *See also, Superman returns.

What the audience wants, what the fans want, is to see Supes cross swords against the Computer Tyrant Brainiac or the Demonic Space Hitler, Darkseid.

This makes absolutely zero sense and is not remotely backed up by ...well....anything. What “fans” want this?

If anything, what we actually know to be true is the exact OPPOSITE of this: when a Superman film ::doesn’t:: center the Daily Planet and provide equal focus on Clark Kent the film struggles.

Superman Returns was criticized ::specifically:: because it erased Lois’s relationship with CLARK and seemingly forgot that they were such close friends. Clark Kent reporter was a non-entity in SR and it was a problem with the film.

One of the biggest critical complaints again about both Man of Steel and BvS was that the films were too focused on these huge alien threats as opposed to allowing Clark to live and breathe on his own turf without other heroes and otherworldly threats stealing space.

Superman has been the most successful when it’s done the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, Lois and Clark, the animated series and the later seasons of Smallville focused distinctly on the balance of Superman and Clark Kent with an emphasis on his relationships with the humans in his orbit and his job at the Daily Planet as a home base and anchor.

The audience not only expects to see these things when they go to see a Superman film but they will and have openly rejected the franchise when those things aren’t present. John Henry Irons is the only character here that I would welcome in a film. The rest would be not only completely inappropriate but would likely steal focus from what the audience expects to see in a Superman film and, once again, tank the film.

The formula for a good Superman media property is really not that hard. Trying to “shake it up” is actually what ruins it. It doesn’t need fixing.

[Vordan]

Edit: You know what? It’s not worth it.

[Doctor Know]

This makes absolutely zero sense and is not remotely backed up by ...well....anything. What “fans” want this?

If anything, what we actually know to be true is the exact OPPOSITE of this: when a Superman film ::doesn’t:: center the Daily Planet and provide equal focus on Clark Kent the film struggles.

Superman Returns was criticized ::specifically:: because it erased Lois’s relationship with CLARK and seemingly forgot that they were such close friends. Clark Kent reporter was a non-entity in SR and it was a problem with the film.

One of the biggest critical complaints again about both Man of Steel and BvS was that the films were too focused on these huge alien threats as opposed to allowing Clark to live and breathe on his own turf without other heroes and otherworldly threats stealing space.

Superman has been the most successful when it’s done the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Superman: The Movie, Superman 2, Lois and Clark, the animated series and the later seasons of Smallville focused distinctly on the balance of Superman and Clark Kent with an emphasis on his relationships with the humans in his orbit and his job at the Daily Planet as a home base and anchor.

The audience not only expects to see these things when they go to see a Superman film but they will and have openly rejected the franchise when those things aren’t present. John Henry Irons is the only character here that I would welcome in a film. The rest would be not only completely inappropriate but would likely steal focus from what the audience expects to see in a Superman film and, once again, tank the film.

The formula for a good Superman media property is really not that hard. Trying to “shake it up” is actually what ruins it. It doesn’t need fixing.

Take a villain threat (presumably one the audience hasn't seen before), a bloated supporting cast with their own subplots, Superman's journey, Supes and Lois' romance and the goal Superman reaches (since saving the world isn't enough for people these days), and square that within a 2 hour movie. When you think about it, you realize there is not enough time for all that. Something has to be cut. Study the MCU films and you realize they keep the narrative tight on their main characters and keep the supporting cast down to a minimum. With characters who can either support the hero in combat/action movie stuff. Or characters the main character has to protect and or prove himself too. Like MJ, Ant-Man's daughter, Bucky, etc.

I recommended Irons, Palmer and Hoshi because they're all scientists and they work for Star Labs. A place Supes is familiar with and collaborates with frequently. You could do the disgruntled employee of Lexcorp origin for Irons as well. But making him a tech at Star saves time and doesn't need explaining.

Star can help Supes build gadgets, a new fortress (satellite base), new rockets for space exploration. So Supes isn't restricted only to Earth for future films. Or keep the Daily Planet crew and have office hijinks. With characters who don't know Clark is Supes, can't help him during action scenes and are in an industry that is dying and people stopped caring about. There's a reason the 5th season of the Wire, the 3rd season of the Newsroom are considered the worst of the bunch. There's a reason both the Daily Bugle and Daily Planet casts have had their roles reduced in the comics and media in recent years. Same reason why printed and digital media companies have been shedding viewers, subscribers and employees. Newsroom media is a sinking ship. Science and discovery however, always have the public's interest. Think Elon Musk, Tesla and SpaceX.

The Supergirl tv show also defers more to the DEO crew, than the Catco crew.


And people do want to see Brainiac and Darkseid on the big screen. They have the star power we need to make the next movie stand out.

[Nelliebly]

Take a villain threat (presumably one the audience hasn't seen before), a bloated supporting cast with their own subplots, Superman's journey, Supes and Lois' romance and the goal Superman reaches (since saving the world isn't enough for people these days), and square that within a 2 hour movie. When you think about it, you realize there is not enough time for all that. Something has to be cut. Study the MCU films and you realize they keep the narrative tight on their main characters and keep the supporting cast down to a minimum. With characters who can either support the hero in combat/action movie stuff. Or characters the main character has to protect and or prove himself too. Like MJ, Ant-Man's daughter, Bucky, etc.

I recommended Irons, Palmer and Hoshi because they're all scientists and they work for Star Labs. A place Supes is familiar with and collaborates with frequently. You could do the disgruntled employee of Lexcorp origin for Irons as well. But making him a tech at Star saves time and doesn't need explaining.

Star can help Supes build gadgets, a new fortress (satellite base), new rockets for space exploration. So Supes isn't restricted only to Earth for future films. Or keep the Daily Planet crew and have office hijinks. With characters who don't know Clark is Supes, can't help him during action scenes and are in an industry that is dying and people stopped caring about. There's a reason the 5th season of the Wire, the 3rd season of the Newsroom are considered the worst of the bunch. There's a reason both the Daily Bugle and Daily Planet casts have had their roles reduced in the comics and media in recent years. Same reason why printed and digital media companies have been shedding viewers, subscribers and employees. Newsroom media is a sinking ship. Science and discovery however, always have the public's interest. Think Elon Musk, Tesla and SpaceX.

The Supergirl tv show also defers more to the DEO crew, than the Catco crew.


And people do want to see Brainiac and Darkseid on the big screen. They have the star power we need to make the next movie stand out.

I don’t even know where to start with this. You are forcing your own clear biases and preferences on Superman and it’s like a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit.

1. I don’t need to “study” the MCU movies, thanks. They are formulaic to a fault. Some of them are very good (Winter Soldier, First Avenger, Black Panther) and some of them are extremely mediocre and forgettable. They all follow the same exact formula that often rings hollow and is often pleasing but forgotten about a few months later. WB doesn’t need to follow the MCU formula in order to succeed with Superman. In part, because a lot of Marvel’s success has stemmed from the reality that they don’t ::have:: the same kind of iconic figures heading their franchises. No one “misses” iconic supporting casts with most of these characters because the general public doesn’t KNOW who they are. This is not the case with Gotham City or Metropolis which are on a completely different level of recognition for the general public and so audience expectations are extremely different. The only character Marvel has used with that same recognition is Peter Parker and you only need to read the news right now to understand the cluster**** of controversy going on with that franchise, in part, because Disney removed Peter from his working class roots and his life as the friendly neighborhood hero and made him the protege of a literal billionaire. The presence of MJ is the only thing anchoring Peter right now to his familiar story and that actually ::has:: been a problem for a lot of people.

2. Star Labs is a fine place to occasionally drop in but it should not be the home base of a Superman movie. It’s been the home base of The Flash TV show for the past few seasons and, again, that choice has been met with a ton of criticism as it’s too many cooks in the kitchen and creates a lot of “lots of people standing around spouting jargon” but doesn’t actually engage you in life or provide a sense of Barry’s full life. It’s even worse with Superman as the dual identity is a vital piece of the myth. Star Labs as a random place in the background as seen in”Lois and Clark” and Smallville with Dr. Hamilton as a side character works fine. Making star Labs the home base of your Superman movie is a great way to tank your movie.

3. Journalism is not a dying medium and all you have to do is turn on the news right now to understand that. If anything, honest journalists genuinely willing to stand up against corruption are more important than ever as they are often all that stands between the public and outright Criminal behavior. Journalism is a ::changing:: medium and the Daily Planet would certainly and has certainly evolved with those changes but the job itself is still as vital and relevant as ever even if the execution of that role has slightly evolved.

4. Supergirl’s over reliance on the DEO has, again, been a highly criticized point which is why the show keeps attempting to course correct and re-focus on Kara as a reporter. The problem with Supergirl has everything to do with the fact that she’s living a stolen story. The journalism focus on Supergirl is a stolen story from both Clark and Lois and will never fully work because it doesn’t ::belong:: to her. As opposed to giving Kara her own myth, they simply stole his. So it’s a poor comparison because if anything Supergirl actually points to the iconic comfort found in the role of a reporter which is why the CW tried to steal it.

Brainiac and Darkseid as villains are fine. But what you are suggesting is essentially the elimination of the Clark Kent identity with a focus only on him being Superman all the time dealing only with huge off world threats and that is a great way to not only completely tank the franchise but literally alienate at least half of your audience who do not just show up to a Superman Media property wanting to see him punching aliens. Half of your audience shows up ::specifically:: for Clark Kent. For Lois. For legit romance. For human interactions and human stories. Over 40% of the audience for Man of Steel were WOMEN. Superman has a much higher female demo than Batman does and he has a higher demo than most of the Marvel properties where it’s usually more of a 70/30 split. Superman on television has been sustained by WOMEN. If you don’t make a Superman movie that speaks equally to women, the movie does not succeed. Period. This isn’t even guess work, this is hard fact. Women do not show up for a Superman movie for him to be Superman punching crap 24/7. They show up for Clark Kent equally and importantly. If he’s not truly in your movie, you lose your movie. And WB absolutely needs women to show up for Superman and they KNOW it. They absolutely know it.

Brainiac and Darkseid are fine as threats (Braniac moreso given he’s an actual Superman villain)But they are not the “star power” in the film. Your “star power” for a successful Superman media property is Superman/Clark/Lois as the anchor of your film and they are what you need to actually focus on to make the film work. Stray from that heart or forget one piece of it (as Superman Returns forgot Clark Kent) and your film doesn’t work and doesn’t hit emotionally.

[Doctor Know]

I don’t even know where to start with this. You are forcing your own clear biases and preferences on Superman and it’s like a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit.

More like I've read the tea leaves and following the trend already set. It's no an exaggeration or hyperbole to say that DC and Marvel has reduced the roles of the newsroom angles for Supes, Spidey and Flash.

1. I don’t need to “study” the MCU movies, thanks.

You misunderstood. I said study the MCU films with regards to how they craft the narratives around the main characters and keep the supporting characters to a minimum/keeping only the essentials. Nolan's TDK movies were the same way. Read the reviews or watch Stranger Things season 3, to see what too large of a supporting cast can do to a narrative.

2. Star Labs is a fine place to occasionally drop in but it should not be the home base of a Superman movie. It’s been the home base of The Flash TV show for the past few seasons and, again, that choice has been met with a ton of criticism as it’s too many cooks in the kitchen and creates a lot of “lots of people standing around spouting jargon” but doesn’t actually engage you in life or provide a sense of Barry’s full life. It’s even worse with Superman as the dual identity is a vital piece of the myth. Star Labs as a random place in the background as seen in”Lois and Clark” and Smallville with Dr. Hamilton as a side character works fine. Making star Labs the home base of your Superman movie is a great way to tank your movie.

STAR would be an easy way to explain Supes' space trips, a future Justice League satellite, and help him use more than his fists to make the world a better place. Also, it help that the people who work for STAR, Hamilton, Palmer, Irons, Hoshi, Faulker have all been "inspired" by interacting with Supes is someway. Something you can't claim the Daily Planet crew has ever done. Only Lois (the love interest) knows his secret identity.

3. Journalism is not a dying medium and all you have to do is turn on the news right now to understand that. If anything, honest journalists genuinely willing to stand up against corruption are more important than ever as they are often all that stands between the public and outright Criminal behavior. Journalism is a ::changing:: medium and the Daily Planet would certainly and has certainly evolved with those changes but the job itself is still as vital and relevant as ever even if the execution of that role has slightly evolved.

Nearly all news media platforms have reported losses and have been laying off people by the hundreds. Now, you can do a journalist/detective story with Clark. Work in Dan Turpin and Maggie Sawyer with the Metropolis PD. But I don't think that's what people pay to see in a Superman film. Big fights, big action is what sells. Supes would need that to hit the billion dollar club.

4. Supergirl’s over reliance on the DEO has, again, been a highly criticized point which is why the show keeps attempting to course correct and re-focus on Kara as a reporter. The problem with Supergirl has everything to do with the fact that she’s living a stolen story. The journalism focus on Supergirl is a stolen story from both Clark and Lois and will never fully work because it doesn’t ::belong:: to her. As opposed to giving Kara her own myth, they simply stole his. So it’s a poor comparison because if anything Supergirl actually points to the iconic comfort found in the role of a reporter which is why the CW tried to steal it.

Agreed. But you see the writers have also read the tea leaves and narrow focused on riding the scifi angle with Supergirl. Rather than the down to Earth journalism angle.

Brainiac and Darkseid as villains are fine. But what you are suggesting is essentially the elimination of the Clark Kent identity with a focus only on him being Superman all the time dealing only with huge off world threats and that is a great way to not only completely tank the franchise but literally alienate at least half of your audience who do not just show up to a Superman Media property wanting to see him punching aliens. Half of your audience shows up ::specifically:: for Clark Kent. For Lois. For legit romance. For human interactions and human stories. Over 40% of the audience for Man of Steel were WOMEN. Superman has a much higher female demo than Batman does and he has a higher demo than most of the Marvel properties where it’s usually more of a 70/30 split. Superman on television has been sustained by WOMEN. If you don’t make a Superman movie that speaks equally to women, the movie does not succeed. Period. This isn’t even guess work, this is hard fact. Women do not show up for a Superman movie for him to be Superman punching crap 24/7. They show up for Clark Kent equally and importantly. If he’s not truly in your movie, you lose your movie. And WB absolutely needs women to show up for Superman and they KNOW it. They absolutely know it.

There is a reason why the casting for Superman is what it is. It’s not really ever just about finding the best actor or the best looking guy. They literally always cast men who are designed specifically to appeal to women. Because women are an important sustaining demo for Superman as a franchise going all the way back to the Reeve film.

I'm suggesting let Supes be himself with people who are like minded and talented in their own way. Supes always stands out better when he has people he can interact with on the same level. Like the League and Legion. Sure they look up to him, but they still stand as equals. The DP crew are not "in on the joke" of Clark being Supes. We the audience know, and Clark himself knows. How can we defer so much attention to the DP crew if they're going to be left out of the loop?

Also, given the nature of Darkseid and Brainaic, their MOs call for combat, strategy and larger than life adventures.
Brainiac wants to kill all organic life. Save a trophy city and annhilate what's left.
Darkseid psychically feeds on the despair and misery of others. He wants to conqueror Earth and destroy Superman. A beacon of hope and justice.


Seriously think about it. You will realize it's hard to reconcile all these things. But it can be done.

[DochaDocha]

Start over in, I don't know, ten years? WB and Zack Snyder messed this up so badly that it feels like having a both GOOD Superman and a solid overarching DCU universe are not compatible at this point.

The real question for me is if it's worth it to screw over the WW, Shazam, and Aquaman timelines just to fix Superman? I'm hoping the audience just doesn't care about timelines. Then again, necessity to adhere to Justice League and Batman v. Superman really interferes with Wonder Woman's timeline, and Aquaman can sort of be watched as completely independent of other movies. Maybe so long as audiences and creators are willing to give the middle finger to continuity, we can have some decent Superman movies in the future.

General ideas, if we were to put the quality of the narrative above all other things:

1) Start young, like with Grant Morrison's Superman, with clear implications that there will be power creep.

2) Slow down the romance. I'm not saying remove it, because it's still important, but don't rush into it. Looking over at Marvel (MCU, FOX, Sony), I'd say most of the romance stories felt like paint-by-numbers stuff, as in they had to work romance into the story because casuals want to see romance. I like to joke that Hawkeye's wife is the best superhero WAG/HAB, because there's no need to make her a) someone who constantly needs to be saved or b) someone who unreasonably is involved in the action-heavy sequences and c) isn't forced into the story because, by law, the man and woman have to kiss in the movie. Yup, this would probably hurt box office, but I'm not overly concerning myself (yet) with casuals who won't support Superman in the long run. Also, at least that would give some freedom for Superman to travel to exotic locations and spend more time dealing with the superheroic conflicts. Anyway, this is supposed to be a franchise, so use the sequels to fit it in eventually and within a reasonable pacing.

3) I don't mind revisiting Krypton, if for no other reason to show how vast the universe is and explain why weird aliens might be attracted to Earth, or why Superman needs to go to the ends of the known universe to save the day. Donner had an interesting idea by introducing the Phantom Zone criminals early so that it wouldn't feel like they were coming out of left field, and STAS had a clever plan to introduce Brainiac as someone/something that accelerated the extinction of Kryptonians, as well as a future threat that Superman would feel some responsibility in resolving.

4) I was about to say the following: "Keep the Daily Planet, but don't anchor Superman/Clark Kent to it. You can still have a Superman story with Lois, Jimmy, Perry, etc., without necessarily having Clark Kent as a mild-mannered reporter on the Planet's staff. He can still be an independent reporter." But then I look at the state of the news these days and see how awful media standards currently are, so maybe I want Clark Kent to be a very old school reporter and resemble a modern-day blogger as little as possible. I'm torn here. Maybe he can be a blogger with old-school principles and therefore likes to associate with the Lois Lanes and Perry Whites of the world.

5) Lastly, Zack Snyder's direction that the bringing together of the superheroes without Superman's involvement is one that still rubs me the wrong way. Look, I can appreciate that Snyder made Superman the big gun, especially since other media like to chump Superman for various reasons, so it's not a complete disaster. Still, I want Superman to have more character significance. I'd like the heroes to be inspired by Superman, but I'd also prefer that they knew him a little more and actually liked the guy.

[Nelliebly]

More like I've read the tea leaves and following the trend already set. It's no an exaggeration or hyperbole to say that DC and Marvel has reduced the roles of the newsroom angles for Supes, Spidey and Flash.

The removal of Peter Parker’s association with the Daily Bugle has been a highly controversial choice but it doesn’t impact him quite as much because Peter Parker is currently a TEEN and so his home base is school. The news angle for Flash does not have the same kind of iconic recognition for the general public. These are not good comparisons.

You misunderstood. I said study the MCU films with regards to how they craft the narratives around the main characters and keep the supporting characters to a minimum/keeping only the essentials. Nolan's TDK movies were the same way. Read the reviews or watch Stranger Things season 3, to see what too large of a supporting cast can do to a narrative.

No one is arguing that Lombard and Ron Troupe need to have their own subplots or adventures. But you are literally advocating for the complete elimination of the Clark Kent identity and there is virtually nothing in the “tea leaves” that suggests that’s at all what the audience wants in a Superman movie.

STAR would be an easy way to explain Supes' space trips, a future Justice League satellite, and help him use more than his fists to make the world a better place. Also, it help that the people who work for STAR, Hamilton, Palmer, Irons, Hoshi, Faulker have all been "inspired" by interacting with Supes is someway. Something you can't claim the Daily Planet crew has ever done. Only Lois (the love interest) knows his secret identity.

Lois is not just a love interest. She’s the second protagonist in any successful Superman media property and what you are advocating gives her literally nothing to do but stand around and just ::be:: a love interest who does nothing but support Clark but doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the narrative because you’ve completely undercut the world in which they inhabit together. That’s a great way to piss off half of your audience in 2019 who get seriously pissed off when they go to see Superman media and feel that Lois was given virtually nothing to do.

]early all news media platforms have reported losses and have been laying off people by the hundreds. Now, you can do a journalist/detective story with Clark. Work in Dan Turpin and Maggie Sawyer with the Metropolis PD. But I don't think that's what people pay to see in a Superman film. Big fights, big action is what sells. Supes would need that to hit the billion dollar club.

News media having to ::change:: the way we get our news does not mean the veracity and importance of the news itself is dead. And there are certainly ways to address that in the narrative just as Bendis is doing.

As for audiences supposedly clamoring for wall to wall action...this is not supported by history. Man of Steel was non-stop wall to wall action for the last 1/2 of years film and critics and audiences didn’t ::like::it. Nearly every review of MOS, said the exact same thing: the film started out great but quickly dissolved into 90 minutes of pointless action sequences. History does not support your view that wall to wall action and alien threats are what people want from a Superman movie. I personally liked Man of Steel but even I, as someone who liked the film, found the last 1/3 of the movie insufferable for this exact reason.

I'm suggesting let Supes be himself with people who are like minded and talented in their own way. Supes always stands out better when he has people he can interact with on the same level. Like the League and Legion. Sure they look up to him, but they still stand as equals. The DP crew are not "in on the joke" of Clark being Supes. We the audience know, and Clark himself knows. How can we defer so much attention to the DP crew if they're going to be left out of the loop?

Because Clark Kent is not just a joke that people need to be in on to matter. He’s a person. An equal person to Superman.

Your opinion is that Superman shines brightest when he’s amongst other heroes and aliens and I’m of the opposite opinion—I think they dim his light and steal focus. You fail to see the point of Clark being at the Planet because you aren’t valuing Clark Kent as a persona equal to Superman and that’s a massive problem because it means you are only getting half the story.

Seriously think about it. You will realize it's hard to reconcile all these things. But it can be done.

At what cost? At the complete elimination of Clark Kent from a Superman movie? It’s a great way to ruin your franchise and make Superman just a formulaic generic nothing of a story—just like everyone else.

Audiences literally watched a 10 year series that was about Clark Kent. No Superman—-Clark. And he fought plenty of high stakes threats and punched plenty of bad guys but Clark, as a person, was the heart. You are arguing to essentially eliminate that which not only sets Superman apart from other male heroes but that which has actively proven to draw people in. Removing Clark Kent from Superman is a complete misunderstanding of what Superman is actually about that would actively destroy the franchise. These are poor suggestions.

[Nelliebly]

Sorry for the edited post---I was having some seriously weird posting difficulties!