Samuel Walters wrote:
What I *do* like about the outline, and think had great potential, was the conflict of ideology: Superman's lassez-faire philosophy vs. Braniac's hands-on approach. I would have loved to see Braniac's intentions to be good -- rather than purely self-serving -- and watch the conflict between too much meddling and too little intervention play out. That makes for a really compelling character and thematic study. That part of the film I'd like to have seen.
That's the only interesting thing about Superman, as far as I'm concerned. Here's an individual with essentially god-like powers in a world rife with exactly those things he claims to want to combat--suffering, injustice, etc.--at a massive scale. How much does he intervene? How far can he impose his vision of the world on others? Where does one find the balance between free will and suffering it causes? The central issue of Superman should always be the problem of theodicy; he is epic by his very existence. Instead, the character is mired in cornball Grant Wood shite, lovelorn brooding and chasing down Beagle Boys-level petty crooks. This outline, ironically, sounds like the best take on the character for the cinema I've yet to hear; shame that Singer didn't do this film when he had the chance, instead of the aggressively bad film he ultimately released.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman