Superman's Problem - just my take

[stonester1]

Superman doesn't have a problem. When they make a Superman movie, it earns ridiculous amounts of money - simply not as much money as Warner Bros would like. It's Warners management that has a problem.

Superman Returns was an underrated film.

Totally.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Superman doesn't have a problem. When they make a Superman movie, it earns ridiculous amounts of money - simply not as much money as Warner Bros would like. It's Warners management that has a problem.

Superman Returns was an underrated film.

Complete agreement.

Even those who do not like SR should agree with the other part -
Warners management has a problem.

THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WANT!

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Make Kryptonian tech the central villainous MacGuffin, IMO, and you not only get relatively credible Supes enemies but also a cautionary tale about spreading weaponry, a subject very much in vogue in this age of fears over rogue nukes and other arms-related problems.

I don't think placing the focus on aliens or alien tech will make it easier for audiences to relate to Superman. What's largely missing (from recent films, I haven't watched any TV shows or read any comics) are stories about Superman's humanity and, yes, about his inner conflicts.

If Superman has no inner conflict, then it's going to be very, very difficult for audiences to relate to him. Of course, this doesn't mean Superman has to suddenly become a carbon-copy of Batman's angst or Spider-Man's insecurity. I think the Superman Returns approach had the right spirit, but wrong ideas. But by taking on the "hero" mantle, there must, necessarily, be some kind of conflict within himself.

Maybe it has to do with choices about who to save or about trying to lead a "normal" life knowing that he has an obligation to use his "gifts" for the common good. Maybe it becomes a story of how he prevents his "absolute power" from "absolutely corrupting" his sensibilities. Maybe it becomes a love story. Maybe it becomes a struggle between his two personas -- which version of himself does he really want to be? There are plenty of possibilities, all of which never impinge on Superman's nobility of character, yet still provide a measure of depth and complexity.

These can all be done absent aliens and alien technology, and, more importantly, can explore how humanity reacts to Superman intervening in their affairs. If the focus becomes Superman vs. Aliens/Alien tech, then it's essentially two god-like factions using Earth as a battlefield.

That's Transformers, minus Sam Witwicky.

 

[Checkmate]

Superman's biggest weakness isn't Lois Lane, Kryptonite, or magic. It's his own morality. When Lex became President, it totally threw him for a loop. Even though he knew Lex was utterly corrupt and wicked, there wasn't much he could do about it. He was helpless, because his morality wouldn't let him go thrash around a sitting President on a whim.

You don't get to see that much in the movies because, as previously mentioned, the writing has been complete and total shit for every single movie. The Donner ones included.

He's not a difficult character to write for. His antagonists don't have to be superpowered gods. Lex Luthor is proof of that. They just have to know how to manipulate and take advantage of that one great weakness he has. It's why other heroes like Batman both respect and laugh at him. They respect that he is this icon of morality, but laugh at him for letting it control his actions despite the circumstances.

Hell, it's the dream scenario many writers claim to love. A 100% character-driven vulnerability where all his myriad god-like powers are completely useless. He may as well be a regular Joe on the street. You could pick almost any villain in his Rogue Gallery and have a field day reinventing them -- and they are most definitely the ones who need to be reinvented, not Supes -- to take advantage of that fact.

But no. Every director and writer who gets assigned (which itself seems to be one of the biggest problems) a Superman project feels some twisted, insane need to "deconstruct" the character and do God-knows what with him. All I know is that all we ever get from that bullshit is bullshit.

Again, the animated series was pretty damn close at nailing him. It's not that hard to do the same thing in live action. We don't need an emo Clark Kent who can't even fly for whatever stupid reason. We don't need a red and a blue Superman with lightning powers. We don't need him to keep his suit in a can. We don't need a Superbastard love child. We don't need any of that crap. We just need someone who understands the actual character and someone interested in telling a story about him, rather than reinventing the wheel to make their mark on the mythos or whatever insane reason they have for doing the shit they do.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

why are we the only nation in the world with filmmakers who won't make movies for us?

You're joking, right?

 

[Broccoli]

The thing with Superman Returns was that, I think, audiences were expecting one thing then got another.

With all due respect, which part of "PLEASE refrain from commenting on subjects not related to the following OP. If you think that Superman Returns was underrated, or that Singer shouldn't be allowed near the franchise again, terrific - there are dozens of other Supes-related threads in which to discuss such matters" wasn't clear?

Where did I bash SR? Oh, wait. That's right; I didn't. Dude, I liked Superman Returns. Okay? In my response to your initial post, I felt it relevant to express why SR might have went wrong with others in order to explain my thoughts further. Did you read my post (where I did address your OP, or did you just see the words "Superman Returns" and get all pissy?

More to the point, how a can you realistically have a thread about "Superman's problem" without bringing up past films or TV shows that, presumably, brought this "problem". I suppose if I brought up the old George Reeves show or Lois and Clark, that would have been okay.

You say the solution is better writing.

No. That's NOT what I said.

Who said the "you" is you? I was tired and had a typing brain fart. I believe it was Jetfire who said "better writing" before the post was deleted.

In my OP, I set forth a very specific idea in hopes that it might start an interesting discussion about that subject. But only a handful of replies gave any indication of their posters having read further than the words "Superman Returns". To cite but one example, Shivkala practically wrote an essay on the character, but apparently didn't have any interest in replying to the original idea.

To the 2 or 3 of you who actually replied to the OP in some form, you have my thanks. But maybe it's impossible to have a sustained discussion about a particular bit of Supermania without devolving into a free-for-all, at least here.

On with the nerd-analyzing, Bosworth-bashing and Singer-deconstructing, then. Here's a burning question: Brandon Routh: hot or not?

Okay, noted for future reference: Posts can only be allowed if they follow the OP's specific guidelines to the letter and not allowed to evolve or bring in things that might better explain a poster's point in regards to the discussion at hand.

 

[Jetfire]

No. That's NOT what I said.

Who said the "you" is you? I was tired and had a typing brain fart. I believe it was Jetfire who said "better writing" before the post was deleted.

Yeah it was me.

Since then others have also stated that writing is a problem...I don't feel so bad.