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

[Kuwagaton]

The Rocketeer is a period piece short story character in the vein of a serial though. The film pretty much fit in everything Stevens put down and all these IDW sequels are squeezing the same lemon. By the time Reeve was suiting up, there was a mountain of original material to represent and even that well received take just scratched the surface.

Not that I mean to say a great vision with great direction wouldn't make a better film than we've had, just that a serial product requires less effort to translate Superman

[MarvelMaster616]

I think that's a good question. Superman movies do seem to be more hit or miss than TV shows. I've enjoyed every Superman TV show I've ever seen on some level. And I think part of the reason for that is a TV show's format makes it easier to flesh out Superman's character, motivations, and principles. Other heroes might have flaws, foils, and complexities, but they're easier to work into a 2 hour movie. Superman, being the paragon of paragons, requires a bit more nuance. And I think that's why his story works so much better in a TV show format. But that's just my opinion.

[DochaDocha]

I have to third the notion that Superman's design is that of a serial character. I guess you can call it complexity but I think you just need a deep, involved story to show enough of him.

Fourth, with qualification. I think a serial is better than a movie, but I think an 8-hour series or something like that would also work great.

[Flash Gordon]

The Rocketeer is a period piece short story character in the vein of a serial though. The film pretty much fit in everything Stevens put down and all these IDW sequels are squeezing the same lemon. By the time Reeve was suiting up, there was a mountain of original material to represent and even that well received take just scratched the surface.

Not that I mean to say a great vision with great direction wouldn't make a better film than we've had, just that a serial product requires less effort to translate Superman

That's fair, but The Rocketeer is a fully formed vision. That character could easily continue on but that flick also stands fine on it's own. It's such a great movie because of this. That's my point.

I would prefer a new Superman take that uses elements from other material, not an adaptation. I love Superman but there isn't THAT much stuff that warrants an exact adaptation. We need a vision for the future and a look into the character from fresh eyes. There's a ton to PULL from, Morrison in particular.

[Vordan]

There’s more involvement from the comic people with the TV shows than the movies. Also the TV shows frequently focus on Superman, they let us get inside his head and see his hopes, fears, loves, and rivalries. The movies tend to be “well what does Superman MEAN bro” in an attempt to be deep that frequently ends up being try hard and shallow. Singer was too mired in nostalgia while Snyder drifted too far away from the core of the character. Like others have said, TV shows have more chances to course correct when they make mistakes unlike movies which HAVE to nail it in one go.

Also the TV shows show us new stuff while the movies rehash the same old crap we’ve seen before. Lex and Zod are the only two villains most directors seem to know about and they’re both utterly played out.

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

It's because he gets flicks like SUPERMAN RETURNS and BATMAN V. SUPERMAN. That's not even mentioning JUSTICE LEAGUE, which is hardly a "movie". Those aren't going to make anyone interested in the character.

SMALLVILLE, for instance, had it's flaws but also had purpose and interest in exploring the character and his world. All of those shows, really.

People always harken to the '78 flick as the be all end all, but really the reason it has lasting power is because it was a fully formed aesthetic. It had vision. When was the last time Superman had a real visionary take on him? MAN OF STEEL was different, sure- but was never followed up on in any way that mattered. It also ended without real resolution and that resolution never came in another feature. So ultimately it was just "stuff happened on screen for a while".

Yeah, basically this. I agree that Superman clearly has a better tv track record than big screen, but I think that’s more down to circumstance, how things just happened to play out, rather than the character being inherently more suited for one medium over the other. If characters like Wonder Woman, Shazam and Captain America can get audiences invested in their characters, I don’t see why Superman can’t. I think he can thrive on both mediums, just needs the right direction.
If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

[Yoda]

Also the TV shows frequently focus on Superman, they let us get inside his head and see his hopes, fears, loves, and rivalries. The movies tend to be “well what does Superman MEAN bro” in an attempt to be deep that frequently ends up being try hard and shallow.

This definitely seems to be a big issue with the movie attempts. All the movies are trying to MAKE A STATEMENT so we end up with overwrought Jesus allegories or real world explorations that "aren't the Superman you know" or try hard adaptions to make him "relevant."

The TV shows are just trying to tell the best stories they can with the character.

[Vordan]

Yeah, basically this. I agree that Superman clearly has a better tv track record than big screen, but I think that’s more down to circumstance, how things just happened to play out, rather than the character being inherently more suited for one medium over the other. If characters like Wonder Woman, Shazam and Captain America can get audiences invested in their characters, I don’t see why Superman can’t. I think he can thrive on both mediums, just needs the right direction.
If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

He’s in the Lego and Injustice and even the DCUO games so I can’t agree with that. Of course some incarnations like Silver Age Superman who can break the time barrier and juggle planets with ease are not suited for video games at all, but others could. The Golden Age/New 52 Superman would easily fit into a video game, he’d basically play as the Hulk. And he’s vulnerable enough that your average mook could be a threat to him. Even the Post Crisis/Rebirth Superman could have a game depending on where you’d set it. Place him in Kandor or the PZ and you could easily have a Metroidvania Arkham set up for a Superman game.

[DochaDocha]

He’s in the Lego and Injustice and even the DCUO games so I can’t agree with that. Of course some incarnations like Silver Age Superman who can break the time barrier and juggle planets with ease are not suited for video games at all, but others could. The Golden Age/New 52 Superman would easily fit into a video game, he’d basically play as the Hulk. And he’s vulnerable enough that your average mook could be a threat to him. Even the Post Crisis/Rebirth Superman could have a game depending on where you’d set it. Place him in Kandor or the PZ and you could easily have a Metroidvania Arkham set up for a Superman game.

But Lego and Injustice aren't Superman games as much as they are games with Superman in it, and DCUO doesn't have a playable Superman.

I loved Lego Batman 2 & 3, especially their comedic take on Superman, but there's nothing amazing about playing as Superman. Okay, I take that back, the best part of Superman is that he feels so obviously broken compared to the other playable characters: doesn't take damage, has a huge skill set, can fly, etc... the only thing he can't do are little tasks that involve super-specific abilities to unlock puzzles. And in Injustice, they leveled the playing field so Superman has no (theoretical) leg up on any other characters. Not that I think they designed the fighting game incorrectly; if anything the I think the story explanation for why everyone is on his level is superfluous.

If you want to make a Game of the Year-contending Superman game, that's a whole 'nother question. Superman is like the El Dorado or Fountain of Youth for game developers: everyone wants to find the way to make it.

[Kuwagaton]

Yeah, basically this. I agree that Superman clearly has a better tv track record than big screen, but I think that’s more down to circumstance, how things just happened to play out, rather than the character being inherently more suited for one medium over the other. If characters like Wonder Woman, Shazam and Captain America can get audiences invested in their characters, I don’t see why Superman can’t. I think he can thrive on both mediums, just needs the right direction.
If there’s one medium I think Superman may just not be built for, it’s video games.

Reality says otherwise but I just can't believe that in 80 years of data to mine they haven't figured out how to knock out a great Superman game. There are so many technically smart people in different facets of that industry. If it's intimidating... I mean they don't even need a masterpiece first game to start

As far as other comic characters go, it's not like Shazam or Cap have worked as well as Superman on the small screen. If Adventures and Smallville are really the only two strong runs... he still has Batman beat on tv too.

For all the discussions on the next movie I stick with the idea of taking it for granted that the reader already knows all that stuff you feel obligated to tell them. Cut to the chase.

[stargazer01]

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?

With a very expensive big screen movie, he only gets one real shot to make an impression. Bad writing, poor planning and weak visions that try to change him into something he's not is what has hurt his movies.

Look at other movies like Wonder Woman (who is also very powerful), Aquaman and Batman; those directors stayed truer to the characters and their worlds, and made more entertaining movies that most fans, critics and general audiences liked and embraced and it showed with the films having better legs at the box office and positive reviews. The fact is that both Bryan Singer and Snyder and all those responsible behing those movies just didn't measure up or understood why people love Superman. The movies have many flaws one way or another.

Regarding the TV shows, I'm not a big fan of most of it so far.. most of it seem rather mediocre with some gems here and there. Despite the flaws, I enjoy the movies more and also animated stuff. It does Clark a lot more justice.

[The_Lurk]

With a very expensive big screen movie, he only gets one real shot to make an impression. Bad writing, poor planning and weak visions that try to change him into something he's not is what has hurt his movies.

Look at other movies like Wonder Woman (who is also very powerful), Aquaman and Batman; those directors stayed truer to the characters and their worlds, and made more entertaining movies that most fans, critics and general audiences liked and embraced and it showed with the films having better legs at the box office and positive reviews. The fact is that both Bryan Singer and Snyder and all those responsible behing those movies just didn't measure up or understood why people love Superman. The movies have many flaws one way or another.

Regarding the TV shows, I'm not a big fan of most of it so far.. most of it seem rather mediocre with some gems here and there. Despite the flaws, I enjoy the movies more and also animated stuff. It does Clark a lot more justice.

Even more recent Joker. Some ppl love to point out that its a dark movie and critics of BvS are bigots for liking Joker; completely oblivious to the fact that it completely fits the Joker character; its IMO as faithful as it gets to one with such an unknown background. The biggest recent successes all appear to be those that try to be as faithful to the original characters (or an blend of them like with Aquaman) as possible.

[The World]

The character lacks focus which then makes it hard to condense down into a 2 hour or so flick. TV Shows give you ample time to cobble something together by just throwing stuff at the character and hoping people cling on to something which they can go back an analyze and then pump out more of the things people like. If you look at Wonder Woman who has had far fewer shots than Superman, when she gets the opportunity people always nail it when working on multimedia projects for her because there is an over all understanding of who Wonder Woman is as a character. Superman's character is sort of both boiler plate and scattershot, can't imagine the hell it must be trying to figure out what people want from this guy.

They need to sit down look over Superman's 80 year history and produce something that makes sense. That scene where he trashes the guys truck in MOS shouldn't have been controversial, in the early days Superman would have absolutely pummeled this guy. There needs to be an understanding of who Superman is beyond smiling muscular guy. Whether the GA like it or not they're going to have to accept that Superman gets violent with people like that.


IIRC was Lois and Clark not suppose to even have Superman in it nor was Smallville?

[stargazer01]

Even more recent Joker. Some ppl love to point out that its a dark movie and critics of BvS are bigots for liking Joker; completely oblivious to the fact that it completely fits the Joker character; its IMO as faithful as it gets to one with such an unknown background. The biggest recent successes all appear to be those that try to be as faithful to the original characters (or an blend of them like with Aquaman) as possible.

Exactly.

The character lacks focus which then makes it hard to condense down into a 2 hour or so flick. TV Shows give you ample time to cobble something together by just throwing stuff at the character and hoping people cling on to something which they can go back an analyze and then pump out more of the things people like. If you look at Wonder Woman who has had far fewer shots than Superman, when she gets the opportunity people always nail it when working on multimedia projects for her because there is an over all understanding of who Wonder Woman is as a character. Superman's character is sort of both boiler plate and scattershot, can't imagine the hell it must be trying to figure out what people want from this guy.

They need to sit down look over Superman's 80 year history and produce something that makes sense. That scene where he trashes the guys truck in MOS shouldn't have been controversial, in the early days Superman would have absolutely pummeled this guy. There needs to be an understanding of who Superman is beyond smiling muscular guy. Whether the GA like it or not they're going to have to accept that Superman gets violent with people like that.


IIRC was Lois and Clark not suppose to even have Superman in it nor was Smallville?

I don't think the GA really have a problem with a scene like that, it's the hardcore fans that complain. I think the diner scene makes a lot of sense why Clark would trash his truck because the guy was evil and deserved some punishment. I mean, a lot of fans love it when Reeve's Clark Kent beat Rocky in Superman 2. Why? maybe because the guy deserved it. Clark is a good guy, but he's not dumb.

[The_Lurk]

Exactly.



I don't think the GA really have a problem with a scene like that, it's the hardcore fans that complain. I think the diner scene makes a lot of sense why Clark would trash his truck because the guy was evil and deserved some punishment. I mean, a lot of fans love it when Reeve's Clark Kent beat Rocky in Superman 2. Why? maybe because the guy deserved it. Clark is a good guy, but he's not dumb.

I'm not so sure about the general conception of the general audience. Either the GA consists of mostly hardcore fans or we should start giving the GA more credit. The big commercial successes also pleased the fans; the less successful ones did not. Sure; exceptions like Suicide Squad exists. Total crowd-pleaser that a lot of fans appear to dislike (but than again like for i.e. Waller and Harley).