Why does Clark have more success on the small screen instead of the big screen?

[Last Son]

Superman is, by far, the most successful superhero on live-action television ever.

Since the medium has been around, Clark has already had 4 TV shows centered on him, with a 5th one on the way:


THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN ran from 1951 thru 1957 for a total of 6 seasons and 104 episodes.

SUPERBOY ran from 1988 thru 1992 for 4 seasons and 100 episodes.

LOIS & CLARK ran from 1993 thru 1997 for 4 seasons and 87 episodes.

SMALLVILLE ran from 2001 thru 2011 for 10 seasons and 217 episodes.

SUPERMAN & LOIS will run from 2020 onwards.


And that's not yet counting his spinoff TV sagas like SUPERGIRL and KRYPTON.

So ... isn't this a bit odd?

Clark is arguably the most powerful of all superheroes. You'd think he'd be a natural for the big screen and find consistent success there, only he hasn't. Whereas, he seems much more comfortable on the small screen that quite frankly rarely has the budget to let him cut loose.

Why does Clark consistently work better on tv than film?

I don't think it's necessarily a bigger success. Maybe TV is a more forgiving environment than the box office? A low rated TV show can last for years and years, never cracking even the top 30 in the ratings. A $200 million dollar movie needs to make a crapload of money for the studio to consider making another expensive movie. Most Superman-related shows didn't have particularly large budgets and would stretch less money than it would take to make a single movie over 22 episodes. Most likely, one season of Smallville was less than half the budget of Superman Returns.

[Ascended]

Nothing beats max fleischer cartoons for me. It is the best bar none.

Can't argue with that.

I don't think it's necessarily a bigger success. Maybe TV is a more forgiving environment than the box office? A low rated TV show can last for years and years, never cracking even the top 30 in the ratings. A $200 million dollar movie needs to make a crapload of money for the studio to consider making another expensive movie. Most Superman-related shows didn't have particularly large budgets and would stretch less money than it would take to make a single movie over 22 episodes. Most likely, one season of Smallville was less than half the budget of Superman Returns.

I think this is really a big part of it. Big budget movies are a stupid expensive risk, especially compared to a small budget tv show. And a character like Superman? WB thinks its so tricky to get him right, he's expensive as hell to do, and I'm not sure if any of the movies were ever clean-cut big wins (even our much loved STM apparently met a lot of mixed/negative reviews when it came out, similar to MoS, though clearly time has been more forgiving).

[Electricmastro]

I’ve been starting to realize just how complex of a character Superman is to write for that can interest someone enough to want to follow his adventures long-term. I used to think that because he’s so well-known and famous, that many writers have figured out how to make him consistently interesting, and yet here over 80 years later, many writers seem to still be having trouble. Because of that, it probably helps to have him in TV series over movies simply because there’s more time help develop his character along, as opposed to movies, which have arguably become less character-based and more event-based.

[JAK]

I’ve been starting to realize just how complex of a character Superman is to writer for that can interest someone enough to want to follow his adventures long-term. I used to think that because he’s so well-known and famous, and many writers have figured out how to make his consistently interesting, and yet here over 80 years later, many writers seem to still be having trouble. Because of that, it probably helps to have him in TV series over movies simply because there’s more time help develop his character along, as opposed to movies, which have arguably become less character-based and more event-based.

There's certainly truth to that. I've got an interesting idea, actually... what if they have a TV series for Superman, and for a really big event, make a movie with those characters and a much bigger budget? Then you have a built-in audience and each can grow the other. I know that's usually "not how it's done," partially because there's a different expectation with TV than with cinema.. but I think, if done right, that could work pretty well. At least that way, we wouldn't keep getting origin movies since WB doesn't have the first clue what they're doing.

[Last Son]

Can't argue with that.



I think this is really a big part of it. Big budget movies are a stupid expensive risk, especially compared to a small budget tv show. And a character like Superman? WB thinks its so tricky to get him right, he's expensive as hell to do, and I'm not sure if any of the movies were ever clean-cut big wins (even our much loved STM apparently met a lot of mixed/negative reviews when it came out, similar to MoS, though clearly time has been more forgiving).

There was no Rotten Tomatoes back then, but I've never heard anything about Superman getting mixed reviews when it first came out. I know not every review was positive, but just about every movie gets one or negative reviews at the very least.

Superman was a success at the box office and well received by critics and audiences. I don't think there's any question of whether or not it was a clean-cut big win.

[Ascended]

There's certainly truth to that. I've got an interesting idea, actually... what if they have a TV series for Superman, and for a really big event, make a movie with those characters and a much bigger budget? Then you have a built-in audience and each can grow the other. I know that's usually "not how it's done," partially because there's a different expectation with TV than with cinema.. but I think, if done right, that could work pretty well. At least that way, we wouldn't keep getting origin movies since WB doesn't have the first clue what they're doing.

Marvel's trying it with Disney+. I suggested the same thing some pages back. The problem of course, is that this would require a degree of commitment and organization that WB seems incapable of.

[DochaDocha]

There was no Rotten Tomatoes back then, but I've never heard anything about Superman getting mixed reviews when it first came out. I know not every review was positive, but just about every movie gets one or negative reviews at the very least.

Superman was a success at the box office and well received by critics and audiences. I don't think there's any question of whether or not it was a clean-cut big win.

Agreed. It has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 94%; out of the 13 "Top Critics," 11 gave it positive reviews. These "Top Critics" include Roger Ebert (4/4), Vincent Canby (4/5), Dave Kehr, Judith Martin, and maybe a few other reviewers who watched the movie back when it actually premiered in theatres. It ranks 75th top movie all-time in inflation-adjusted domestic numbers, and was the #3 movie of 1978, behind Grease and Animal House.

[Osiris-Rex]

There's certainly truth to that. I've got an interesting idea, actually... what if they have a TV series for Superman, and for a really big event, make a movie with those characters and a much bigger budget? Then you have a built-in audience and each can grow the other. I know that's usually "not how it's done," partially because there's a different expectation with TV than with cinema.. but I think, if done right, that could work pretty well. At least that way, we wouldn't keep getting origin movies since WB doesn't have the first clue what they're doing.

They did do that with the Batman 1966 TV show. Except Lee Merewether played Catwoman because Julie Newmar wasn't available. The movie was a flop and the explanation was people didn't realize it was a separate movie.
Thought it was some episodes from the TV show. Why pay to watch something they can see for free.
Though it did work with Star Trek. Maybe audiences had become smarter by then.

[Ascended]

There was no Rotten Tomatoes back then, but I've never heard anything about Superman getting mixed reviews when it first came out. I know not every review was positive, but just about every movie gets one or negative reviews at the very least.

Superman was a success at the box office and well received by critics and audiences. I don't think there's any question of whether or not it was a clean-cut big win.

I have no idea how true it is that STM got some mixed reviews when it originally came out. I wouldn't even be born for another couple years. But that's what I heard.

Obviously today it's considered a classic, but I'm talking about back in 78.

[DochaDocha]

I have no idea how true it is that STM got some mixed reviews when it originally came out. I wouldn't even be born for another couple years. But that's what I heard.

Obviously today it's considered a classic, but I'm talking about back in 78.

Well, Rian Johnson said fans were disappointed with Empire Strikes Back in 1980, so I can believe some renowned critics didn't like Superman in 1978...

[Last Son]

Agreed. It has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 94%; out of the 13 "Top Critics," 11 gave it positive reviews. These "Top Critics" include Roger Ebert (4/4), Vincent Canby (4/5), Dave Kehr, Judith Martin, and maybe a few other reviewers who watched the movie back when it actually premiered in theatres. It ranks 75th top movie all-time in inflation-adjusted domestic numbers, and was the #3 movie of 1978, behind Grease and Animal House.

I mean, it's possible with a smaller field of critics, two negative reviews is worse compared to now when there are maybe hundreds of reviews and only a handful are bad. But the talk of Superman not being as well received when it came out sounds like it's coming from people trying to excuse Man of Steel's mixed reviews, by saying that Superman movies always start out mixed and end up being reevaluated years later.

Btw, from box office listings I've seen, Superman may have been ahead of Animal House. Whether it was two or three, it was certainly no slouch at the box office and it was in very good company.

[marhawkman]

Honestly, most reviewers I don't trust.... I honestly think half them are trolls nowadays.