Why has there not been a great live action Superman movie since 1980?

[Powerboy]

I could live with Superman killing Zod, other heroes have killed the villains at the end of the film and it did not bother me. The CGI destruction and Superman doing nothing to save people, really bugged me though. That's the sticking point, Superman should save people, he should have tried to lure Zod out of the city or been saving people while fighting Zod, the destruction during that fight made Superman seem callous. Its a good fight and after how boring Superman Returns is, I like liked that it was there, but it should have been handled better. Really the big problem with Man of Steel is it had Batman v Superman as a follow up. With a little tightening up, Man of Steel could have been a great story about a rookie Superman who learns to become a better hero, Batman v Superman throws all of that out, makes Superman more mopey and distant and makes Man of Steel seem pointless, it feels like he learned nothing from his experiences in that film.

I wouldn't say he learned nothing. They made a specific point of the fact that Doomsday hit him once knocking him into a building that was deserted because it was late at night. Then Superman immediately lifts him into orbit to avoid casualties. These things are even stated by a newscaster. In fact, Superman starts punching him with the intention of getting him so far out that Doomsday breaks free of the Earth's gravitational pull. But the military messes it up by launching a nuclear missile. Doomsday falls back to Earth. Even then, they emphasize that he landed on an abandoned island. It's Batman that leads Doomsday into a population center and Wonder Woman wants to know why he did something that stupid but Batman explains it's because there's something there that can defeat him.

On the one hand, this shows an awareness of some of the things people didn't like in MoS. So, rather than realism, it's empty buildings and deserted islands and Superman considering casualties. Yes he's still mopey but, then again, I would be too if that stuff was happening to me.

Well the Wonder Woman movie was pretty successful and that movie was ultimately hopeful and optimistic despite being set in WWI.

Here's what I would suggest, you can make the world around Superman darker, but Superman himself should always remain the same, make post 9/11 paranoia something he triumphs over, rather then something that defeats him, over and over again.

In a way, he does triumph over it in MoS but I know what you mean that, in other ways, he doesn't. He keeps saving people but he spends years traveling and hiding rather than deciding to become a symbol. Let's say it was five years. There's really no difference between 2008 and 2013 as far as the world being ready.

That's what they did Wonder Woman and Captain America, optimistic characters in darker settings who refuse to give in and fight for what they believe, their beliefs are challenged, but not defeated.

Though there is also the Thor Ragnarok route, where certain elements stay serious (nothing really funny about Hela), but a lot more comedy and wackiness is introduced. At this point I think you could get away with having Mr. Mxy be a annoying secondary villain who ultimately becomes a comedic foil for Superman. With that route it really depends on the execution, comedy is certainly subjective, but Superman would be the ultimate straight man.

In a way, that was StM (except for Krypton and Smallville). When you look at Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Lex Luthor, Otis, Eve Teschmacher and the general feel of the movie including Clark Kent, Superman is almost the only character that is played straight and even then only as Superman, not Clark. But that's a very dangerous undertaking. As you said, what's funny and what's stupid funny is an inch apart and casting the wrong actor could have destroyed the whole movie.

I would say the setting should be modern (the fact there was no minority characters in Superman Returns is jarring, IMO) but maybe have retro elements in there as well.

Though I will say I want a better version of Lex on screen, because I am sick of the campy idiot we constantly see in the movies pretending to be Lex. I would make Lex far more serious, make him far more competent

I hadn't quite thought of it that way but that is true. Every big screen version of Lex Luthor has been a campy comedy character in some way. Kevin Spacey was probably the best of them. He conveyed both the humor but unleashed the real monster behind it. Gene Hackman, though a great actor, only showed the comedy. The monster was there by default but he wasn't playing it. And Jesse Eisenberg, I just kept totally forgetting he was supposed to be Lex Luthor because he was playing the Joker better than Jared Leto was. In fact, based on performances, Eisenberg and Leto should have switched characters.

[The Overlord]

Hmmm. Well I definitely feel III and Man of Steel are the two best films so... you tell me? Lol.

III starts off with a unique, cleverly executed Rube Goldberg hijinks scene that sets the tone for the movie. It also manages to make Clark a decent character without sacrificing the humorous irony of the biggest dork being the planet busting Superman. Features a legendary comedian in a period when he was red hot. Pamela Stephenson and Annette O'Toole were pitch perfect in casting and made for amusing opposite numbers as supporting characters. The Webster/Gus stuff was hokey... but very much in line with the comics. I dare someone to say the super computer was goofier than Superman's Radio Shack adventure. Basically, I agree with the Comics Alliance review from years ago:



Man of Steel gets plenty of coverage in regular discussions. We know who many people suggest could fix these movies and how, but I do also have to ask why people believe these obvious changes never took place. Besides "DC/Warner wants it to fail," because that's obviously not true.

Fun is a really subjective term and really a film can try to be fun and fail at it. Both the first two Fantastic Four movies tried to fun and failed, Thor Ragnarok tried to fun and succeeded, fun is all in the execution, but you can't use fun as an excuse to justify bad story telling elements, I find well written stories fun. I find this review (done by a comic book fan who has reviewed a lot of comic book movies) sums up a lot of the reasons Superman III just doesn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CnCGD7T_T0

As for Man of Steel, WB may not have meant that movie to fail, but it clearly did not make the money WB wanted. It could have been great, but ended up okay, IMO.

[Powerboy]

Hmmm. Well I definitely feel III and Man of Steel are the two best films so... you tell me? Lol.

III starts off with a unique, cleverly executed Rube Goldberg hijinks scene that sets the tone for the movie. It also manages to make Clark a decent character without sacrificing the humorous irony of the biggest dork being the planet busting Superman. Features a legendary comedian in a period when he was red hot. Pamela Stephenson and Annette O'Toole were pitch perfect in casting and made for amusing opposite numbers as supporting characters. The Webster/Gus stuff was hokey... but very much in line with the comics. I dare someone to say the super computer was goofier than Superman's Radio Shack adventure. Basically, I agree with the Comics Alliance review from years ago:



Man of Steel gets plenty of coverage in regular discussions. We know who many people suggest could fix these movies and how, but I do also have to ask why people believe these obvious changes never took place. Besides "DC/Warner wants it to fail," because that's obviously not true.

And, somewhere out there, someone thinks Superman IV is the best Superman movie ever.

But III really is not a bad movie. I just think it works better as a Richard Pryor movie than as a Superman movie. It could have worked as comedy. The Pryor stuff did. The stuff with Gus and Brad I found particularly funny. The Lana Lang stuff was touching. I found the Dark Superman part could have worked but, somehow, within the context of the movie, it just seemed stupid funny more than anything else. When Superman was running down the street and the child is yelling after him, I guess it was supposed to be dramatic but, again, context. It seemed laughable. But then again, there was a time in the Silver Age that, had I been an adult at the time, it would all have seemed just laughable fun.

My personal rating of best to worst:

Superman (1978) aka Superman the Movie
Man of Steel
Batman v Superman
Superman II
Superman Returns
Superman III
Justice League
Supergirl (1984)
Superman IV

So, when are they going to make a great Superman movie again? For me, they just did. Of the top 5, three are the most recent ones and two of the top three are the most recent ones.

[Powerboy]

Forget one because it was so low budget but it had a nice touch of the qualities MoS embodied but in the Golden Age yet it touched on bigotry and the reality that Superman is an alien who would be feared and hunted were he not so human looking and he knows that.

Superman and the Mole Men (aka the Unknown People)
Superman (1978) aka Superman the Movie
Man of Steel
Batman v Superman
Superman II
Superman Returns
Superman III
Justice League
Supergirl (1984)
Superman IV

[The Overlord]

I wouldn't say he learned nothing. They made a specific point of the fact that Doomsday hit him once knocking him into a building that was deserted because it was late at night. Then Superman immediately lifts him into orbit to avoid casualties. These things are even stated by a newscaster. In fact, Superman starts punching him with the intention of getting him so far out that Doomsday breaks free of the Earth's gravitational pull. But the military messes it up by launching a nuclear missile. Doomsday falls back to Earth. Even then, they emphasize that he landed on an abandoned island. It's Batman that leads Doomsday into a population center and Wonder Woman wants to know why he did something that stupid but Batman explains it's because there's something there that can defeat him.

On the one hand, this shows an awareness of some of the things people didn't like in MoS. So, rather than realism, it's empty buildings and deserted islands and Superman considering casualties. Yes he's still mopey but, then again, I would be too if that stuff was happening to me.

I guess you are right, but man I just felt like Superman should have gotten over being mopey, I was fine with it in Man of Steel, but I felt like the character should have progressed beyond that in next appearance and become more like the traditional Superman.

In a way, he does triumph over it in MoS but I know what you mean that, in other ways, he doesn't. He keeps saving people but he spends years traveling and hiding rather than deciding to become a symbol. Let's say it was five years. There's really no difference between 2008 and 2013 as far as the world being ready.

But he doesn't really triumph over it, Batman acts like Dick Cheney and treats Superman like a threat for most of the next film (and the way they resolve that just sucks) and the military tries to nuke Superman for no good reason. It doesn't feel like Superman had a meaningful triumph in Man of Steel, IMO.

In a way, that was StM (except for Krypton and Smallville). When you look at Perry White, Jimmy Olsen, Lex Luthor, Otis, Eve Teschmacher and the general feel of the movie including Clark Kent, Superman is almost the only character that is played straight and even then only as Superman, not Clark. But that's a very dangerous undertaking. As you said, what's funny and what's stupid funny is an inch apart and casting the wrong actor could have destroyed the whole movie.

I do think comedy has changed a lot since that film. Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor Ragnarok certainly have a different type if humor then Superman the Motion Picture has. Given we have super hero movies featuring tree creatures and talking raccoons, I think you could get away with a lot in a super hero film and the audience will buy it.

So I would say either make a really serious movie with Superman being confronted with a darker world, but remaining positive and triumphing in the end or give Superman a modern wacky comedic adventure and throw in crazy stuff like Mr. Mxy, Krypto, a red kryptonite gag, etc.

I hadn't quite thought of it that way but that is true. Every big screen version of Lex Luthor has been a campy comedy character in some way. Kevin Spacey was probably the best of them. He conveyed both the humor but unleashed the real monster behind it. Gene Hackman, though a great actor, only showed the comedy. The monster was there by default but he wasn't playing it. And Jesse Eisenberg, I just kept totally forgetting he was supposed to be Lex Luthor because he was playing the Joker better than Jared Leto was. In fact, based on performances, Eisenberg and Leto should have switched characters.

I think Lex Luthor is second most mistreated super villain on the Silver Screen (with Dr. Doom being number 1). In terms of some of the potential wacky elements you do in a Superman film, Lex should not be one. I would play him straight and show why he is Superman's arch enemy, combine his business man and mad scientist roles, making him a master of business, science and strategy, a foe Superman can't just punch into submission. That would be refreshing.

I noticed you ranked your best to worst Superman films below and I appreciate that everyone will have different opinions on what makes a great film, but for me, only Superman the Motion Picture and Superman II I put in the tier of great movies (even then I will admit to being really generous towards them). Those two films are great, Man of Steel and Justice League are just okay for me, I put them in the Iron Man 3 tier of mediocrity, its just okay. Superman III and Superman Returns are in a tier below that, bad films with a few redeeming characteristics, like Daredevil and X-Men the Last Stand. Supergirl, Batman v Superman and Superman IV belong in the bottom rung, the sewer tier they can hang out with Fan4stic, Catwoman and Batman and Robin. I like Superman, but I usually do not give a movie extra points just because it stars a character I like. I have disliked several super hero movies with a characters I like and movies out of franchises I like, such as Star Wars and Star Trek, a failing grade because I did not like those films, the beloved characters being present in those films did not make them better. I just can't rank Man of Steel or Superman III up there with Wonder Woman or Black Panther. I loved the first Guardians of the Galaxy film and I knew nothing about those characters going in.

Man, I do wish we got a truly great Superman movie in modern times, just my opinion, but I do not think we have had one.

[Agent Z]

I guess you are right, but man I just felt like Superman should have gotten over being mopey, I was fine with it in Man of Steel, but I felt like the character should have progressed beyond that in next appearance and become more like the traditionally Superman.

His being “mopey” in both films amounts to not smiling like an idiot at the camera 24/7. Stuff like this gets blown way out of proportion. Especially given the comic Superman has been a far bigger buzzkill with less justifiable reason for decades.

But he doesn't really triumph over it, Batman acts like Dick Cheney and treats Superman like a threat for most of the next film (and the way they resolve that just sucks) and the military tries to nuke Superman for no good reason. It doesn't feel like Superman had a meaningful triumph in Man of Steel, IMO.

The military didn’t try to nuke Superman. They tried to nuke Doomsday because they didn’t believe that Superman could stop him.

So I would say either make a really serious movie with Superman being confronted with a darker world, but remaining positive and triumphing in the end

That’s pretty much what they did in MoS and BvS. They just made him, you know, work for that triumph as opposed to handing it to him on a silver platter.

[Soubhagya]

Wait Lex Luthor in Superman is bad? Really? I disagree. He is awesome. See from 22.56-26.08.

[Kuwagaton]

Fun is a really subjective term and really a film can try to be fun and fail at it. Both the first two Fantastic Four movies tried to fun and failed, Thor Ragnarok tried to fun and succeeded, fun is all in the execution, but you can't use fun as an excuse to justify bad story telling elements, I find well written stories fun. I find this review (done by a comic book fan who has reviewed a lot of comic book movies) sums up a lot of the reasons Superman III just doesn't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CnCGD7T_T0

As for Man of Steel, WB may not have meant that movie to fail, but it clearly did not make the money WB wanted. It could have been great, but ended up okay, IMO.

Subjective nature doesn't bypass accurate consensus. Between Dark Knight, Civil War, and Black Panther so far, I have been to the theater 6 times. Each of those movies, on each showing, had moments where the crowd would roar in laughter or applause. Is "fun" the most accurate or comprehensive way to describe those movie plots? Are not Ragnarok and III more like each other than those three movies are like either of them?

As for the review you posted, thanks. It's always good for someone to elaborate, even if it's in the mold of a generically snarky internet guy. But since he did, these are the issues raised to me:

1. He mentions unrelated plots: Gus, "Evil" Superman, Smallville, and the computer. Gus goes to Smallville and accesses the computer for the synthetic kryponite that turns Superman "evil" so... all four come together, right?

2. He proceeds to talk about the missed opportunity for Brainiac by discussing the cartoon Brainiac from 13 years later. That criticism as it is doesn't make sense, so I can only assume that the reviewer may not be familiar with Brainiac stories written before then.

3. taking issue with Webster's ambition: a 1983 movie not about computers making tangible rewards or a robot army, but rather using piracy and chaos. Hm.

4. If Lorelei is one dimensional, what was her motivation for joining Webster? How much did she care that Superman was no longer under the influence and had no intention of sustaining a relationship? She obviously only had his body without his mind. Why complain that Gus, instead of turning over a new leaf, acts like most people outside of movies and ahead of the curve, deciding to keep playing his own way?

5. When joining up with Webster and deciding to stay in the face of danger, is it not possible that he was in fear of retaliation or blackmail for his inciting crime?

6. So the computer figures out kryptonite where it wasn't possible before. Perhaps a computer capable of pursuing a desired effect can substitute the missing element for what it knows at fractions of a second?

7. Did the junkyard fight happen, or was it in his head? Hm... isn't that ambiguity part of the point?

8. He should tell Lana that he's Superman because she has a crush on Clark? Why would that seem to follow any logic we've ever seen regarding the secret identity elsewhere?

9. Gus the main character is untrue because the supporting cast does not rally around him, it rallies around Superman.

10. Given everything else in the movie, the point of straightening the tower of Pisa would have to be for humor. This movie does not indicate that its preoccupation was to show people a truly "evil" Superman.

And, somewhere out there, someone thinks Superman IV is the best Superman movie ever.

Does that person have a well known comic blog? Where can I find and read that counterpoint?

[Powerboy]

Does that person have a well known comic blog? Where can I find and read that counterpoint?

Okay, clearly I offended you with that remark, though it was meant as a joke, and I do apologize for that.

I think Superman III was a movie that had some good parts but it just felt like those parts never really came together and formed a sum.

The Richard Pryor stuff was funny. But I thought it just didn't merge well with the other stuff.

The Lana Lang stuff was sweet and touching on its own but never really connected well to anything else.

Dark Superman likewise may have been interesting in another context but here it just seemed like the movie was jumping rails yet again.

There were other factors too.

I like Robert Vaughn but he really felt bland here, lacking energy especially after Hackman's Luthor.

The Pamela Stephenson character could have been interesting. Clearly, she was way too smart and educated to be nothing but a sex toy for some billionaire. But we never really found out her story.

I think III also suffered from being the reset movie. What I mean is that, at the end of II, with the Amnesia Kiss, it was effectively doing what we now call hitting the restart button. Doing away with the Lois relationship instead of going forward with it so the Lana relationship comes across as just a rehash and a dead end. And that was my opinion then, not just through decades of change in how comics are done.

I think one reason Lex Luthor worked is that he was at least a character from the Superman mythology deespite the comedic approach. I thought about how it would be hard to interject Pryor into that mythology and then it hit me. I think he could have done a great Mxyzptlk, a character that fit well into a Superman story rather than almost creating a character like Gus Gorman who comes across as two separate stories.

According to the commentary, the original intention was to do an early 1960s story involving Mxyzptlk and Brainiac. As I said, I can easily see Pryor as Mxy. Vaughn as Brainiac? Hmm.

[Kuwagaton]

Offended? Not in the least. That was my ribbing, actually. Because while I do believe that every baby is somebody's baby, the fact that someone somewhere out there anonymously likes something the rest of us don't doesn't invalidate an argument for why something else may described as better than its common rating.

Mxy by Pryor reminds me of Robin by Wayans. I guess for modern context, Gus Gorman is like putting Kevin Hart in Captain America. There's something lost in translation, but the basic idea is going out of the box with a very popular brand of comedian.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

For the same reason why Superman comics have often been underwhelming since 1986 or so.

DC/WB constantly hires people who don't have a good handle on the character. The only difference is, the comics will occasionally still give us great stories like All Star or Birthright.

Since no one else challenged this comment, I will.

As someone who started reading Superman comics regularly in 1975, I can say that by 1979, Superman comics went into rapid decline. The last few years of comics before the Byrne reboot were just painful, embarrassing, juvenile, and awful much more often than not. Schwartz had lost his mojo and just didn't know what the hell to do with the character.

Byrne's 1986 reboot saved the character and made him readable again. Once Carlin took over as editor and basically treated the Superman titles as one continuing story, Superman reached his apex. Carlin and his writers created interesting and challenging stories for the character, deepened his supporting cast, and made them all very interesting. 1986-1996 (from reboot to wedding) was a great 10-year stretch and the best the character had ever been treated. When Carlin left Superman to become EIC of DC overall, things started to decline, but still miles better than the childish tripe we were getting from 1980-1986.

Now, since the main point of the thread was about the movies, I'll chime in on that, too. I loved Superman, Superman II, and Man of Steel (ESPECIALLY the big CGI fight at the end).

III, IV, and Returns all had some good parts, but were mostly disappointments.

[Powerboy]

Offended? Not in the least. That was my ribbing, actually. Because while I do believe that every baby is somebody's baby, the fact that someone somewhere out there anonymously likes something the rest of us don't doesn't invalidate an argument for why something else may described as better than its common rating.

Mxy by Pryor reminds me of Robin by Wayans. I guess for modern context, Gus Gorman is like putting Kevin Hart in Captain America. There's something lost in translation, but the basic idea is going out of the box with a very popular brand of comedian.

As a matter of fact, I not so secretly like "Batman and Robin". Now, I know it's horrible in many ways but I saw it at the right time and in the right mood. I felt that the Tim Burton movies were very campy themselves and that you might as well embrace the camp if it's abundantly there anyway. Or, more accurately, B&R gave me that Adam West feeling which I was really nostalgically in the mood for at that time. I guess I think it's better than commonly thought of. Honestly, it's my favorite of those four which is strange since I definitely don't have that opinion of Superman IV.

[micahbevans88]

As a matter of fact, I not so secretly like "Batman and Robin". Now, I know it's horrible in many ways but I saw it at the right time and in the right mood. I felt that the Tim Burton movies were very campy themselves and that you might as well embrace the camp if it's abundantly there anyway. Or, more accurately, B&R gave me that Adam West feeling which I was really nostalgically in the mood for at that time. I guess I think it's better than commonly thought of. Honestly, it's my favorite of those four which is strange since I definitely don't have that opinion of Superman IV.

batman forever and batman and robin were the definitive movies of my childhood. I'm completely incapable of being objective about it, I will always have strong emotional ties to the neon-camp of schumacher's batman.

[Kuwagaton]

Belated welcome Micah. I guess we're the same age and our experiences weren't all that different. I saw B&R in theaters. Even as a kid I knew it wasn't actually good (same with BF really), but it really didn't seem aimed to impress people with its weight or wit. I chuckled. It's a little different to me because it also didn't try to fall in line with the Burton movies.

Since no one else challenged this comment, I will.

As someone who started reading Superman comics regularly in 1975, I can say that by 1979, Superman comics went into rapid decline. The last few years of comics before the Byrne reboot were just painful, embarrassing, juvenile, and awful much more often than not. Schwartz had lost his mojo and just didn't know what the hell to do with the character.

Byrne's 1986 reboot saved the character and made him readable again. Once Carlin took over as editor and basically treated the Superman titles as one continuing story, Superman reached his apex. Carlin and his writers created interesting and challenging stories for the character, deepened his supporting cast, and made them all very interesting. 1986-1996 (from reboot to wedding) was a great 10-year stretch and the best the character had ever been treated. When Carlin left Superman to become EIC of DC overall, things started to decline, but still miles better than the childish tripe we were getting from 1980-1986.

Now, since the main point of the thread was about the movies, I'll chime in on that, too. I loved Superman, Superman II, and Man of Steel (ESPECIALLY the big CGI fight at the end).

Thanks for the insight, because there were all sorts of letters from around then indicating that skeptics were being turned around and new/lapsed readers were diving in, but I wasn't around then to see it.

And I was so shocked coming out of that theater HIGH on MoS and all the excitement, only to see the internet slam it.

*shrug*

[Powerboy]

Belated welcome Micah. I guess we're the same age and our experiences weren't all that different. I saw B&R in theaters. Even as a kid I knew it wasn't actually good (same with BF really), but it really didn't seem aimed to impress people with its weight or wit. I chuckled. It's a little different to me because it also didn't try to fall in line with the Burton movies.



Thanks for the insight, because there were all sorts of letters from around then indicating that skeptics were being turned around and new/lapsed readers were diving in, but I wasn't around then to see it.

And I was so shocked coming out of that theater HIGH on MoS and all the excitement, only to see the internet slam it.

*shrug*

I reacted that way too. I loved Superman the Movie but I wouldn't say I walked out looking at the character as an ideal to aspire to. The movie was inspirational in a way but it was so four color or whatever term one might use that I didn't think of him as an ideal.

But I walked out of "Man of Steel" feeling, "Wow, now THAT was inspirational because it felt so much more real than anything that's been done before." Here's a version of Superman in a world of character realism where the world dones't just bend over and love him, where all the fear, hate and bigotry of the real world exists and yet he's in there trying to do the right thing and help people constantly and that is far, far more inspirational than a Superman in a setting that is so four color that he just appears on the scene and everybody trusts him and accepts him without qualm or question. Instead, we get a story where it's so much more true to what would probably really happen when this massively powerful alien shows up in our world. I know some people would say he's not as inspirational because there's so many negative things going on. But those far more believable things just make his insistence on helping people even more inspirational.