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

[stargazer01]

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.

Good point. The movies in the last 20 years have tried really hard to be too philosophical at the expense of good and more heartfelt stories about him. The have shown a Superman character that feels too alienated from the human race. He is not nearly as charming and charismatic like he used to be in the Reeve movies.

Look at Diana in the Wonder Woman movie, for instance. She was very likable during most of the movie. She was friendly with everybody and let people get close to her. And she was eager to help. It didn't seem like a burden. Same with Aquaman. No wonder people really liked them..

[Ascended]

I think Superman works better in the serialized format because it allows for more character work, which allows for people to get more into Clark's head and character in a way that is harder (but not impossible) to do in movies and thus makes it that much harder to make a compelling story. I think the ability to course correct or adapt to play to different strengths and audience reaction gives television a far larger margin of error than a movie in that sense. Smallville adapted over the course of it's 10 seasons to the point where the closing seasons may as well have been a completely different show. Even shows like Titans have evolved in the course of two seasons into something that is very different from it's pilot.

All of the best drama and storytelling in the last 15 years has been on television. You get one or two solid movies that make a cultural impact a year - if that. It's harder to hit that narrative gold in movie. Think that's true for Superman as well.

I think this is pretty accurate.

I mean ultimately the reason we haven't gotten a great Superman movie is because WB sucks and doesn't get what makes Superman work. For my money we haven't had a good tv appearance either. We've had some entertaining shows but I don't know if I'd say any show *or* movie since George Reeves has really captured Clark's character in full. But a movie has a lot less time to dig into the nuance and layers of Clark's character, and they can't adjust as they go to meet audience expectations.

Ideally what I think would work for Clark is a short, mature-audiences focused season of 8-10 episodes with a big Game of Thrones sized budget (not boobs and swearing but themes that don't require a zinger or action piece every ten minutes but can focus on drama). That'd likely be enough to thread the needle and capture both Clark's nuanced character and the true scope of his abilities. Maybe (but not necessarily) do it with the end goal of launching from the show into a movie. Basically what Marvel is going to try to do with its Disney+ shows.

That way you get the best of both worlds. I mean, imagine if they launched a eight episode show based around Morrison's opening arc of Action (which Im using just as an example because we're all familiar with it). That gives them some time to explore Clark's character instead of having to focus on the spectacle of his powers, it gives them time to get him and his world right. There's a whole arc in there to work with about how the world has responded to Superman and how Clark has to change his approach to achieve his goals, plenty of character-centric stuff to build on, and villains like Lex and Metallo (among others and more can be added like Intergang) who won't break the FX bank. And you end the season with the arrival of Brainiac/the Collector.

Then you continue the story in a big summer blockbuster movie that can handle the FX cost of fighting a giant monster in space. At that point the show has done all the heavy lifting for Clark's character, they've figured out what works and what doesnt, and the film can focus more on the spectacle and worry less about establishing the cast and characterizations. Because Superman is such a well known property audiences who skipped the show only need a quick "recap" to get caught up to speed on this particular version, and there's still enough character growth and development and interaction in Morrison's story after the arrival of Brainiac to satisfy the film's audience.

Of course, none of it matters if WB doesn't hire the right people. And that's the ultimate problem; WB does not get what makes Clark work, and they therefore don't know what the "right people" looks like.

[Kuwagaton]

I mean no one really knows what the right people look like. They wouldn't try to overthink and redo him so often if there was a strong enough response elsewhere. The average depictions of Batman for the last 20 or 30 years have caught on to the point where they port those takes straight to other mediums and he excels the way he did in comics. None of the most popular or influential stories have turned a corner for Superman... if All Star or Secret Identity hit only modest success levels I don't know what's going to do it.

[Ascended]

I mean no one really knows what the right people look like.

Nah, you just gotta be one of the right people to recognize the right people.

WB ain't the right people. But if I sat down for an hour with a potential director or writer? I like to think I would recognize if they understood the character well enough to get him right.

It's not that hard really. A little literary analysis, a little research to see what's caught on with audiences in the past and whether those elements work today (or would with adjustments), a little business data.....wouldn't be that hard, I think, to figure out if someone "gets it."

Also note; getting it doesn't necessarily mean "they agree with my opinion." That's what the analysis and research is for.

[Vordan]

I mean no one really knows what the right people look like. They wouldn't try to overthink and redo him so often if there was a strong enough response elsewhere. The average depictions of Batman for the last 20 or 30 years have caught on to the point where they port those takes straight to other mediums and he excels the way he did in comics. None of the most popular or influential stories have turned a corner for Superman... if All Star or Secret Identity hit only modest success levels I don't know what's going to do it.

Were those modest successes though? ASS seems to have been a big success. And I think you’re overthinking it, what enormously successful WW or Aquaman media was there before the movies? And it’s not like Snyder took from popular Superman depictions, his Superman is a mix of Earth One and Injustice, not ASS, Secret Identity, Morrison New 52 or Rebirth. Hell an American Alien adaption would probably do great, but Snyder was more interested in setting up Superman’s turn to evil than doing anything with him.

Guess we’ll see how people respond to Superman and Lois.

[DochaDocha]

Were those modest successes though? ASS seems to have been a big success. And I think you’re overthinking it, what enormously successful WW or Aquaman media was there before the movies?

The Lynda Carter WW show came out during a time when the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) were pretty much the only games in town (i.e. no cable, no internet, no streaming services, etc.), and therefore had the opportunity to make a pretty big mark on the American consciousness. I wouldn't call it a great show or anything like that, but other than Adam West's Batman it probably was about as "iconic" of a superhero show as any. Modern day superhero shows just don't have the platform of a 1970s-era Big Three, and it would be a tall task for such a show to have the same impact as the Carter series.

[Powerboy]

Superman had tremendous movie success with the Reeve movies until they started lowering the quality and the budget.

More recently, the big mistake has been the choice of who to put in charge of making Superman movies.

I know people say that SR proved the approach of the Reeve movies doesn't work anymore based on the ridiculous assumption that SR had an atmosphere that was anything like the Reeve movies. I don't think a carbon copy of the Donner/ Reeve Superman would work anymore but the parts of SR that failed were not the copy parts but the deviation.

Then we got MoS which wasn't what people wanted or expected from Superman and then we got B v S which did the impossible and made it twice as bad. By JL, most people weren't even bothering to go see them anymore. Then we got a good Superman movie only it was called "Shazam". It also proved the WB and DC have learned something about who to put in charge of and not to put in charge of these movies.

A television show has more time to adjust and correct it's course and is also targeting a more select audience nowadays.

[Kuwagaton]

Nah, you just gotta be one of the right people to recognize the right people.

WB ain't the right people. But if I sat down for an hour with a potential director or writer? I like to think I would recognize if they understood the character well enough to get him right.

Also note; getting it doesn't necessarily mean "they agree with my opinion." That's what the analysis and research is for.

Yeah, it's pretty easy for someone to sound good when they're just talking. You'd probably think Superboy on tv would be killer if you sat down with those writers. Stan Lee himself was over the moon when they brought the Salinger Cap to him.

Were those modest successes though? ASS seems to have been a big success. And I think you’re overthinking it, what enormously successful WW or Aquaman media was there before the movies? And it’s not like Snyder took from popular Superman depictions, his Superman is a mix of Earth One and Injustice, not ASS, Secret Identity, Morrison New 52 or Rebirth. Hell an American Alien adaption would probably do great, but Snyder was more interested in setting up Superman’s turn to evil than doing anything with him.

Guess we’ll see how people respond to Superman and Lois.

Superman never turned to evil in those three films though. And to be fair to Snyder, much of his MoS was influenced by Byrne, and we saw obviously lifted story beats later on like the Doomsday fight. So it's not like he really broke away from the comics for much of what he did.

All Star is almost as big as it might get in acclaim for Superman but...I look at the impacts for DKR, Death of Superman, Year One, Civil War, Dark Phoenix, and others and it's not really there. Not sure what you mean for WW or Aquaman there though.

[mikelmcknight72]

I've not read through the whole thread, so maybe others have said the same thing I'm going to say.

The TV shows are pretty consistent about leaning into what makes him Superman: hope, idealism, brightness. For all the CW Arrowverse's flaws, they've done a pretty darned great job at getting the character's tone correct. The post-Christopher Reeve movies, on the other hand. Brandon Routh made a great Superman, but the script and production values injected too much darkness. They also had him acting out of character in regards to his son. Once he got back and realized that was his son, Superman would NEVER act towards his son the way he was scripted to act. Snyder, of course, is well-documented as just not getting the character.

[Robanker]

If I had to take a wild, succinct guess it's that movies have higher budgets and that makes people want to really explore his powers because it's the only time you really can. On the small screen, the limitations of budget require you build your stories on plot or character. Good or bad, it's more engaging to see character moments play out than most action scenes... Though some are still great (the plane sequence from Returns comes to mind).

Spectacle doesn't linger as long as substance, I suppose.

[JAK]

I think herein lies a bit of the problem, too. The insistence that a movie must be serialized and that it must lead to an expansive series of films. Superman may work best as a serialized character, but on paper something like The Rocketeer should also be serialized and that film is a very contained.

If we look at the most successful superhero joints, they're flicks with a vision. A true aesthetic. Logan, The Dark Knight, Joker, Superman '77, Batman '89. Aquaman had this too. The big Marvel movies may be loud and homogeneous but they have a distinct style to them that floats across.

Superman needs that. He needs something personal with room to breathe. It doesn't need to be dark and introspective, and it doesn't need to be overly silly. It just needs to be something.

Sure - but WB have shown they have absolutely no vision. And in the absence of vision, having more time to iron things out is much better. One of the reasons, imo, that Superman '77 is so good is that WB had almost literally nothing to do with it. lol

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.

That's true, too - and WB's cinema dept tends to thumb their noses at the comics creators. They want them for a quote or publicity, but couldn't give a rat's @$$ about them otherwise.. to WB's peril.

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.

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.

True, but DCUO's basic play style would be pretty great for a Superman game. It wouldn't take much to get one from it, imo. And technically DCUO's Legends PVP and PVE modes have Superman as playable, even if not to the same extent.

I mean no one really knows what the right people look like. They wouldn't try to overthink and redo him so often if there was a strong enough response elsewhere. The average depictions of Batman for the last 20 or 30 years have caught on to the point where they port those takes straight to other mediums and he excels the way he did in comics. None of the most popular or influential stories have turned a corner for Superman... if All Star or Secret Identity hit only modest success levels I don't know what's going to do it.

This goes back to what I said in this post earlier - when they adapt a Batman story, half the time they port it whole. With Superman, they always feel like they have to screw with it. Sometimes that's fine, but often times it's really not. If they'd mostly leave it alone when they port a story over, they'd be better off.

[stargazer01]

Sure - but WB have shown they have absolutely no vision. And in the absence of vision, having more time to iron things out is much better. One of the reasons, imo, that Superman '77 is so good is that WB had almost literally nothing to do with it. lol



That's true, too - and WB's cinema dept tends to thumb their noses at the comics creators. They want them for a quote or publicity, but couldn't give a rat's @$$ about them otherwise.. to WB's peril.





True, but DCUO's basic play style would be pretty great for a Superman game. It wouldn't take much to get one from it, imo. And technically DCUO's Legends PVP and PVE modes have Superman as playable, even if not to the same extent.



This goes back to what I said in this post earlier - when they adapt a Batman story, half the time they port it whole. With Superman, they always feel like they have to screw with it. Sometimes that's fine, but often times it's really not. If they'd mostly leave it alone when they port a story over, they'd be better off.

film directors want to leave THEIR MARK on the character for posterity..

[JAK]

film directors want to leave THEIR MARK on the character for posterity..

If it wasn't a skid mark most of the time, I don't think I'd mind it so much. lol

[manwhohaseverything]

how is that fair? donner's superman wasn't precrisis version.he left his mark.why shouldn't others try as well.Man of steel didn't do that at all.it was basically an amalgamated mess.

[magha_regulus]

The problem solely rests on Warner Brothers. A lack of creative vision and artistry due to a love of profits above all else. Let the creatives at DC comics have control over the creative direction of the movies. Follow the lead of people who actually know and love the character and have actual experience with him.