How "real" should (movie) Superman's world be?

[Gaith]

Something I've noticed...

Some superhero movies set in a recognizably contemporaneous USA:
X-Men 1 and 2 (the near future, I know, but still)
Spider-Man 2
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
The Dark Knight

Some superhero movies set in a less-realistic USA:
X-Men 3 (a biotech company on Alcatraz? Instant repair of the Golden Gate Bridge? Rigggght....)
Spider-Man 3 (an NYC college student thinking about proposing? pretty rare these days...)
And, most of all:
Superman Returns


I think the pattern here is pretty clear.



I think that in film terms, the next Supes movie should answer a question many reviews thought SR didn't address: why does the world circa the mid-2000s need Superman? What's his role? How does a kid from late 80s-90s Kansas decide to put on that costume?

The late 70s was a goofier time; when Reeve donned the costume, it didn't seem all that out of place. We accept Maguire's Spider-Man costume, I think, largely because we know how meek the guy behind it is. He's a bit of a dork, and we believe he would find the costume cool.

But as much as Smallville has, I think, largely dodged the question of why 'Superman' (though I haven't seen past S3), it took an anti-suit stand in negating Superboy. Besides, it sounds as though Welling won't ever suit up in the show.

The Metropolis of S1/2 was obviously late-70s NYC. The Metropolis of SR was hardly seen, but what was was super-shiny and semi-retro. It wasn't the S1/2 Metropolis, and wasn't a contemporary city either. A mere reporter played by a 23-year-old with a five-year old kid living in a bayside mansion? Where were the hoverboards?

So here's my question: how contemporary should Superman be? Should we see Clark's city apartment? Should he address politics at all (see: Iron Man), even in the realm of metaphor (X1-2, Dark Knight)? What would he have to say?

Why, in short, did Clark Kent put on that suit? And where exactly did it come from?

 

[JNG]

My short answer: if I'd written Superman Returns, there would have been some sort of September 11th discussion or an equivalent as a driving force for the whole "where were you?" idea. I don't know what kind of tone they will be going for in the new one, but it's hopefully not too late for something with this kind of bones. People really responded to some of the philosophical underpinnings of The Dark Knight; they elevated the movie without getting in the way.

 

[DRMidnite]

My short answer: if I'd written Superman Returns, there would have been some sort of September 11th discussion or an equivalent as a driving force for the whole "where were you?" idea. I don't know what kind of tone they will be going for in the new one, but it's hopefully not too late for something with this kind of bones. People really responded to some of the philosophical underpinnings of The Dark Knight; they elevated the movie without getting in the way.

I agree 100 percent. On both films. Superman Returns should have had that basis for making feel needed as Superman again. The Dark Knight, in my opinion, is a prime example of how a superhero movie should be done.

 

[Gaith]

Singer:

There was a moment I put in an earlier draft of the script, which I was never going to shoot because it would have dated the film. I want the film to exist in a kind of timeless era, in a a timeless way. But, there was a moment that I at one point entertained where, after he was flying around solving problems by night, at dawn he'd be standing at Ground Zero, just standing there acknowledging something that happened while he was gone, something he couldn't--he wasn't there--to prevent. And yet, I didn't shoot the scene because I felt Ground Zero won't always look like it does today or tomorrow. It'll have buildings there, so, it would date the film.

...

But I certainly didn't want Superman going across the globe solving terrorist problems, very much in the same way that in the Second World War, you didn't want to have him running around defeating Hitler. Because he leads by example. He does the right [thing], he doesn't solve your problems. He helps you solve your problems by just being supportive, helping every once in awhile.

I couldn't find the quote, but Ebert once said something like "movies which best represent their times are the most timeless". The Spirit tried to be timeless, and so did Sin City, in a way, but the far more timely Dark Knight will outlive them and SR by far.

I think SR would have benefited considerably from that scene, and while I wouldn't necessarily want to have terrorists as a central Supes movie antagonist, I wouldn't necessarily mind seeing him find bin Laden and plonk him down before the International Criminal Court either. It'd make for a rather interesting opening sequence, at the least.

 

[btflash]

Why, in short, did Clark Kent put on that suit? And where exactly did it come from?[/quote]


to fight for truth,justice, and the american way. it came from the blankets he was wrapped in when he arrived from krypton.but seriously i think superman can endure in the present as he represents all that is good in us.btw, according to warner brothers the next film will be darker in tone. much like the batman films.personally i don't know how well that will work as superman is anything but a dark character.

 

[JoeZhang]

I think the next film should have more of Superman creeping around in the bushes spying on people's private conversations.

Oh and Richard came come in and catch Superman looming over the child's bed.

 

[dragunzng]

I think the next film should have more of Superman creeping around in the bushes spying on people's private conversations.

Oh and Richard came come in and catch Superman looming over the child's bed.

We've had this conversation numerous times, this is a different topic.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Superman: The Movie was set in a "recognizably contemporaneous USA" at the time it came out, and most think its one of the best superhero movies ever made. It's certainly my favorite.
gaith1: I really liked the Ebert quote. It certainly applies to Superman: The Movie.

 

[Kryton]

While the comics invalidated the whole "Superman as a boy" concept for Superboy, there were also LEGAL reasons Welling never was Superboy (though according to Millar and Gough they hadn't intended to utilize that concept anyway).

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I don't know about "real," but it certainly should be as naturalistic as TDK. Certainly it can be done. It's been done with the verisimilitude of the Donner movie; in fact, that was the order of the day for that particular production -- verisimilitude. It was also done in SR. The world was recognizably our own even if it didn't acknowledge current events, but neither did TDK.

Personally, I'd like to see something like It's Superman done for the next movie. The novel is a very naturalistic and literary approach to Superman. Then again, I'd like to see a period-piece Superman myself. But I think that the approach is valid and can be done in a contemporary movie.

Singer, however, does have a point. The thing with Superman is that he is timeless. This is a view shared by people like Alex Ross, Richard Donner, Deborah Joy LeVine (Lois and Clark first-season producer/show runner). The character is outside of current trends and fashions, and when he those things are imprinted onto him (Fabio hair, anyone?), it's usually disastrous.

 

[Kryton]

Timeless is correct. Because he's not really Superman...he's today's version of Hercules. The hero icon concept is what's timeless. Siegal and Shuster simply refined it to fit into their time.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Question: How "real" should (movie) Superman's world be?

Answer: It shouldn't be. Superman is a fairy tale. Metropolis should be the fantasyland of the future and Superman it's white knight. A Superman movie should be Capraesque. A slice of super-life. The way the world should be. I don't want a sociological study about how a post-911 world reacts to a superhuman who offers to take the weight of the world away from mankind's shoulders. I want a movie about a white-hat goodguy who beats the shit out of the bad guys in black with the long Snidely Whiplash moustaches. I want to see this motherfucker save the world. Fuck reality! I want the fantasy! I want to believe a man can fly! I want Super-Fuckin'-Man!

 

[Ultimale]

^^^Your boldface and profanity don't help sell a weak concept. Sorry. Look to the current comics for how Metropolis should be portrayed. It's design is contemporary and could fit in with our own, but as the OP pointed out, this is a DCU film, not a Marvel U film. Marvel always tried to fit into recognizable settings. The DCU has not and does not. I liked Singer's Metropolis. It, along with the SFX and the casting of Brandon Routh as Clark Kent were about the only things I liked. Metropolis, more so than Gotham City, should indeed have a timeless feel, but not a necessarily retro or conversely a futuristic feel. Think of the Burton Batman films and B:TAS. That aesthetic worked somewhat, but Nolan's films have shown that perhaps more than any other DC character, The Batman's setting should hew very closely to our reality. What Singer wisely did in his production design was to move towards Burton and Timm's concepts, a retro yet contemporary fusion the visual language of which communicates to the audience: "This place is real, could be real, but yet, is hyper-real, is more than where you live or a place you've visited." That's what the next Superman film truly needs to do to be timeless. The first half or so of Superman: The Movie achieved this, but then dated itself (among other things) when it moved to Metropolis.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Make it as real as Iron Man. There's no excuse for hiding in fantasy, when you can shape a much better story out of reality that the audience can relate to. Iron Man's political landscape should be the gold standard for all comic book movies (except ones that have little political content, such as Spider-Man, where it doesn't really matter). Have the courage to have a point of view, or else what you create is going to be childish twaddle.

The other alternative is to create your own highly stylized reality, a la the last two Batman movies. But I'm not a big fan of that approach.

People really responded to some of the philosophical underpinnings of The Dark Knight; they elevated the movie without getting in the way.

To me, Batman evoked the America of the 1930s moreso than anything contemporary. That's okay for that movie series but it's not something that will work for everything.

Maybe this is just my anti-DC prejudice speaking, but I tend to think Marvel is much better at evoking a realistic political environment. I'd much rather see Captain America than Superman, who I consider a bit of a lost cause...

But here's an other approach: The idea up there to make Superman "Capra-esque" is intriguing. Follow the Batman model and invoke an America of the past as your milieu. "Superman as if Frank Capra were the director." Leave the 100% modern approach to Marvel. We don't need Superman and Captain America to tell the same story.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I've always thought Superman belongs in a much more fantastical world than the other super heroes. I've thought a blend of futuristic technology blended with 1930/40s decor and architecture (Something akin to TAS.) would be excellent.

 

[Harvey]

I might argue, if I wanted to spend the time, that Iron Man was a political fantasy that has a very schizophrenic philosophy, but you're right that it at least sets the action in a recognizably 'contemporary' world, Temis.

And, speaking of Captain America, isn't that a planned period piece set in World War II, or has that plan changed?

 

[MarianLH]

Question: How "real" should (movie) Superman's world be?

Answer: It shouldn't be. Superman is a fairy tale. Metropolis should be the fantasyland of the future and Superman it's white knight. A Superman movie should be Capraesque. A slice of super-life. The way the world should be. I don't want a sociological study about how a post-911 world reacts to a superhuman who offers to take the weight of the world away from mankind's shoulders. I want a movie about a white-hat goodguy who beats the shit out of the bad guys in black with the long Snidely Whiplash moustaches. I want to see this motherfucker save the world. Fuck reality! I want the fantasy! I want to believe a man can fly! I want Super-Fuckin'-Man!

I like this idea much more than another Dark Knight. I agree that the boldface and profanity were unnecessary and off-putting, however.


Marian

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I've always thought Superman belongs in a much more fantastical world than the other super heroes. I've thought a blend of futuristic technology blended with 1930/40s decor and architecture (Something akin to TAS.) would be excellent.

Totally agreed. Use the Fleischer (sp?) toons as an example, and "Sky Captain: The World of Tomorrow" the next Superman movie.

 

[CaptainCanada]

And, speaking of Captain America, isn't that a planned period piece set in World War II, or has that plan changed?

The first one is, apart from probably an epilogue or something leading into Avengers, which I think is a mistake; apart from his immediate origin (ie, the point where he gets his powers), the really interesting stuff with Cap is in the present.

As to how "real" the world should be, it kind of depends on the character, but you can take different approaches; Superman is a really stylized/retro setting would work, as would Superman in a world mostly ours.

 

[Yassim]

As to how "real" the world should be, it kind of depends on the character, but you can take different approaches; Superman is a really stylized/retro setting would work, as would Superman in a world mostly ours.

I remember hearing that the Fantastic Four movie was going to be a period piece, a la A Hard Day's Night, set in the Swingin' '60's. I think that might have been just right - and certainly an improvement.

The only superhero movie that I can see made a noticable effort to stylize "reality" is the '89 Batman. All the others have stylized the hero to some extent, but have been set in "reality" as much as possible.

I don't know if changing the setting is necessary, but a Superman movie ultimately needs to be *fun*. Many people remark on the opening credits from Superman Returns, because it was the only part of the movie that felt like an adventure, or felt like any fun at all. The whole movie doesn't need to be one laugh after another, but anyone who enjoyed the Donner Superman would agree that there are many moments for cheers, for fun.