Why is making a good Superman movie so hard?

[flickchick85]

 

[Boy Scout]

That right there is what Superman is all about. Reading that actually re-inspired me to be more like Superman in my everyday life. Thanks for sharing.

That’s a good way to put it, yes. My point was that he’s not concerned with things like how serious his costume is

Oh, absolutely.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

That was beautiful. Simply perfect.

 

[Astro13Zombie]

The beans in that burrito are definitely defying gravity though

 

[RomanticPenguin]

just ask directors if they've ever witnessed a miracle

BADA BING. BADA BOOM!

 

[Lead Cenobite]

I think the costume does play a large part here, honestly. His ridiculous costume is what keeps me from really ever liking Superman - I mean, it's just hard not to laugh when you see him flying around in that gaudy blue and red outfit like that. I felt the same way about Cap's original outfit, and Iron-Man's original outfit, so this is not a Marvel vs DC thing - it's an observation that the "iconic" Superman outfit might need to be updated in order to successfully sell a reboot. Capes are so outdated. And the giant logo emblazoned on his chest It's like he's a walking advertisement for himself. A superhero doesn't need to be that obvious! Wonder Woman's WW symbol is much more sophisticated and less flashy, and doesn't look like it's screaming "I am Wonder Woman!" at the world. I like Aquaman's A-symbol, even though it's a bit dull, because it looks more natural. Superman's S does not, at least not to me.

I'll never understand anyone being THIS uncomfortable with superhero outfits. It's not like you're the one that has to go out in public wearing them, you know. It's fiction, it's allowed to look and be silly.

 

[Lencho01]

The whole costume thing comes from a place of insecurity, I've always felt. "How dare people find these fictional characters dressed in silly costumes to be dressed in silly costumes!"

 

[FunkMiller]

Can somebody go beat Zack Snyder over the head with this, until he finally realises who Superman is?

 

[danlav05]

Moving away from the Extended Universe. I still really want a Superman movie set in 1938, when he debuted.

Take inspiration from the Fleischer cartoons, serials and Reeves series as well as Jackson's King Kong and Sky Captain. Show Metropolis as a sunny, clean, bright city with streets lines by classic vehicles. have Superman battle an evil scientist (Lex Luthor?) and Mechanical Monsters. You can still have Lois as an intelligent leading lady rather than the dolly bird tied to the railway track. Have the 'future/sci fi' elements still retro-looking, but still use some of today's tech to realise it

It could even probably be done on a lower budget. Could be magic

 

[Jochimus]

Moving away from the Extended Universe. I still really want a Superman movie set in 1938, when he debuted.

Take inspiration from the Fleischer cartoons, serials and Reeves series as well as Jackson's King Kong and Sky Captain. Show Metropolis as a sunny, clean, bright city with streets lines by classic vehicles. have Superman battle an evil scientist (Lex Luthor?) and Mechanical Monsters. You can still have Lois as an intelligent leading lady rather than the dolly bird tied to the railway track. Have the 'future/sci fi' elements still retro-looking, but still use some of today's tech to realise it

It could even probably be done on a lower budget. Could be magic

I would be all over this in a heartbeat. This, or a 'Young Clark & The Legion" type of movie.

 

[WhoMani]

Any can make a good Superman movie if they understand and appreciate the character. It's not rocket science.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

The whole costume thing comes from a place of insecurity, I've always felt. "How dare people find these fictional characters dressed in silly costumes to be dressed in silly costumes!"

The costume thing reminds me of the fact all these superheroes have different "wavelengths" that require the right fine tuning.

Green Lantern has a great costume but you can make it look bad. (see Ryan Reynolds)

West Batman wouldn't work in Burton's world despite it's weird gothic aesthetic. Same for Keaton's and Nolan's world.

Superman's costume is great, but you are to make the world of Metropolis/characters fit the right tone for it too work. Trunks or no trunks won't matter.

 

[Lencho01]

The costume thing reminds me of the fact all these superheroes have different "wavelengths" that require the right fine tuning.

Green Lantern has a great costume but you can make it look bad. (see Ryan Reynolds)

West Batman wouldn't work in Burton's world despite it's weird gothic aesthetic. Same for Keaton's and Nolan's world.

Superman's costume is great, but you are to make the world of Metropolis/characters fit the right tone for it too work. Trunks or no trunks won't matter.

Perhaps. Either way, they all look silly in their own way due to the simple fact that no one really dresses like that in real life. Only the more tactical stuff looks fine the “real life” sense.

For me, it’s like looking at the clothes we often see models wear in fashion shows. For the most part, people don’t wear them but people like how they look anyway.

 

[Boy Scout]

Moving away from the Extended Universe. I still really want a Superman movie set in 1938, when he debuted.

Take inspiration from the Fleischer cartoons, serials and Reeves series as well as Jackson's King Kong and Sky Captain. Show Metropolis as a sunny, clean, bright city with streets lines by classic vehicles. have Superman battle an evil scientist (Lex Luthor?) and Mechanical Monsters. You can still have Lois as an intelligent leading lady rather than the dolly bird tied to the railway track. Have the 'future/sci fi' elements still retro-looking, but still use some of today's tech to realise it

It could even probably be done on a lower budget. Could be magic

I can’t say I’m particularly interested in watching a period piece, but I would love to see a film that’s a visual mishmash of multiple different time periods. Implementing creative bits of retro-futuristic imagery would be nice, too.

EDIT: Wait, sorry, it seems like we’re actuylly saying the same thing. I suppose my point is that I would want the film ostensibly set in the present day, but with a more eclectic aesthetic than most modern American cities/movies.

 

[DrCosmic]

I think Superman's hard to write because he's just a superhero. He thrives on the human aspect of heroing, not the heroic aspect of being human. I think Marvel has really perfected and galvanized the latter, of making superheroes that aren't just superheroes, that sort of have superheroics as the cake on top, but Superman is the purest example of the form. The question is not how can he win a fight... he just Supermans it. It's like asking how Batman can solve a mystery. The question is how can he do the right thing when it seems impossible. How can he save everyone?

Even when people sort of get this, they miss the fact that being a superhero is a deeply human thing, and that the external failures of the classical hero are deeply human, and classical for a reason. So they equate superheroism to godhood, and buying into that, that physical strength = god, without the understanding that superheroes, and Superman, are metaphors for the power that we all have in our individual circles and end up with boring stories about a god who doesn't fail, and has some kind of hackneyed character flaw shoved in there.

 

[2kt09]

I think Superman's hard to write because he's just a superhero. He thrives on the human aspect of heroing, not the heroic aspect of being human. I think Marvel has really perfected and galvanized the latter, of making superheroes that aren't just superheroes, that sort of have superheroics as the cake on top, but Superman is the purest example of the form. The question is not how can he win a fight... he just Supermans it. It's like asking how Batman can solve a mystery. The question is how can he do the right thing when it seems impossible. How can he save everyone?

Even when people sort of get this, they miss the fact that being a superhero is a deeply human thing, and that the external failures of the classical hero are deeply human, and classical for a reason. So they equate superheroism to godhood, and buying into that, that physical strength = god, without the understanding that superheroes, and Superman, are metaphors for the power that we all have in our individual circles and end up with boring stories about a god who doesn't fail, and has some kind of hackneyed character flaw shoved in there.

No, it's like asking how BatGod can solve something.

How can he do the right thing when it seems impossible?

It's not even that impossible with Superman, his superpowers and his motivation to just do the right thing.
People equate Superman to godhood because of this rudimentary, basic, "purest example" of a superhero.
People also figured out this is fine in an antiquated setting.

 

[DrCosmic]

No, it's like asking how BatGod can solve something.

It's not even that impossible with Superman, his superpowers and his motivation to just do the right thing.
People equate Superman to godhood because of this rudimentary, basic, "purest example" of a superhero.
People also figured out this is fine in an antiquated setting.

Well, that's the thing. Because Superman is a pure superhero, the testing of him doing the right thing has to be impossible. Superman is the kind of character built for deciding whether to kill Vision to stop Thanos or not. Whether to save the trolley full of kids or Mary Jane. Whether to use the sonar to track Joker or not. Whether to keep Rachel's last note a secret or not. The impossible questions, he's designed to show us how to be good in the morally murky world we live in. Mythic, epic, classical hero problems, as opposed to paying bills, or wanting to quit superheroing or PTSD or whatever human anti-hero problem modern superheroes deal with. The humanity of superman's stories comes in him identifying with the humanity in these impossible situations, and that works in any setting. That's what you see with the girl in All-Star and the repair guy here, contrasted brilliantly with Luthor who is playing the best devil's advocate ever, as he should.

 

[2kt09]

Well, that's the thing. Because Superman is a pure superhero, the testing of him doing the right thing has to be impossible. Superman is the kind of character built for deciding whether to kill Vision to stop Thanos or not. Whether to save the trolley full of kids or Mary Jane. Whether to use the sonar to track Joker or not. Whether to keep Rachel's last note a secret or not. The impossible questions, he's designed to show us how to be good in the morally murky world we live in. Mythic, epic, classical hero problems, as opposed to paying bills, or wanting to quit superheroing or PTSD or whatever human anti-hero problem modern superheroes deal with. The humanity of superman's stories comes in him identifying with the humanity in these impossible situations, and that works in any setting. That's what you see with the girl in All-Star and the repair guy here, contrasted brilliantly with Luthor who is playing the best devil's advocate ever, as he should.

He is not.
He would take him on regardless because he's the strongest there is.
He would save both the trolley full of kids and Mary Jane faster than a speeding bullet.
Who needs sonar when you're own NSA through x-ray and the acutest sense of hearing.
what?...oh, lol. This is one of those Bruce laments past grievances whilst justifying why he can't stop doing what he's doing,
except Nolan chooses not to do the thing.

I was even thinking back to Megamind and not the fact that Jonah Hill's character became a total a-hole because powers, rather why the Superman analogue decided to give up being the world's Superman.

 

[DrCosmic]

He is not.
He would take him on regardless because he's the strongest there is.
He would save both the trolley full of kids and Mary Jane faster than a speeding bullet.
Who needs sonar when you're own NSA through x-ray and the acutest sense of hearing.
what?...oh, lol. This is one of those Bruce laments past grievances whilst justifying why he can't stop doing what he's doing,
except Nolan chooses not to do the thing.

I was even thinking back to Megamind and not the fact that Jonah Hill's character became a total a-hole because powers, rather why the Superman analogue decided to give up being the world's Superman.

He is. Superman would take Thanos on, yes, and discover that strength does not always trump control of reality, making for both an interesting physical conflict AND in sacrificing himself instead of someone else, creating a satisfying synthesis of the two moral quandries that superheroes naturally run up against all the time.

For the either/or problem, yes, would save both, just like Spider-Man, because he's built for that, even more than Spider-Man is, so you can separate and multiply the simultaneous problems almost infinitely with new twists, contexts and interdependencies obfuscating the solution in nearly infinite ways.

He's fast, but not infinitely fast, and he can only be in one place. Him not needing the NSA equipment just underlines that he's built to have the moral quandry that TDK has. So in that case, he's literally built for it, better than Batman, and it's honestly shameful that Batman is the first one to have this superheroic problem on screen when it's literally Superman's power to have this problem.

Megamind is a great example of a hero who has that same mythic choice between abuse of power and inaction (similar to the sonar problem), and resolves it through embracing his weakness, allowing him to use his power without abusing it. This is why Superman's Kryptonite is THE perfect touch on his character. It's often misused as something that's intended to level the playing field, but it works best when it floors Superman, showing that physical strength comes with physical weakness, and that this does not stop him from trying, or remove his intellect. Man, I forgot how much I love Superman til just now. Just the ultimate metaphor character, imho.

My point is not that he would not be able to find the third option, but that he is built to have these kinds of superheroic/mythic/epic challenges, better than the superheroes who usually get them. I brought this up because people think that he is supposed to have different kinds of problems other than superheroic ones. You can put Superman in positions where sacrificing himself is the only answer, where two things are happening far enough away that he has to fly as fast as he possibly can and be smart about it to save both, you can question the morality of his power, and show him as physically weak. These are natural key parts of the character.

What you can't do so easily is have Superman be under the weather, you have to make up some random thing. You can't have him have rent trouble, because he could literally just fly to African and bring back a fistfull of diamonds any time, or do insider trading from the outside, or all kinds of stuff. You can't take his company or country from him, he doesn't have that, his special place blew up when he was a baby. He's supposed to be the ultimate good guy, so his out of touchness can't be his weakness, it has to be ours, his temper can't break anything/hurt anyone, he can't be greedy, abusive, deceitful or genuinely have low self esteem like other heroes do. He's not built to have human-scale problems. This is what people are talking about when they say Superman is 'boring.' Human scale problems don't phase him, and instead of building up the mythic problems, people who make superman movies tend to try and super-up the human scale problems and it usually doesn't give us anything good.

That's my theory. Your thoughts?

 

[2kt09]

He is. Superman would take Thanos on, yes, and discover that strength does not always trump control of reality, making for both an interesting physical conflict AND in sacrificing himself instead of someone else, creating a satisfying synthesis of the two moral quandries that superheroes naturally run up against all the time.

For the either/or problem, yes, would save both, just like Spider-Man, because he's built for that, even more than Spider-Man is, so you can separate and multiply the simultaneous problems almost infinitely with new twists, contexts and interdependencies obfuscating the solution in nearly infinite ways.

He's fast, but not infinitely fast, and he can only be in one place. Him not needing the NSA equipment just underlines that he's built to have the moral quandry that TDK has. So in that case, he's literally built for it, better than Batman, and it's honestly shameful that Batman is the first one to have this superheroic problem on screen when it's literally Superman's power to have this problem.

Megamind is a great example of a hero who has that same mythic choice between abuse of power and inaction (similar to the sonar problem), and resolves it through embracing his weakness, allowing him to use his power without abusing it. This is why Superman's Kryptonite is THE perfect touch on his character. It's often misused as something that's intended to level the playing field, but it works best when it floors Superman, showing that physical strength comes with physical weakness, and that this does not stop him from trying, or remove his intellect. Man, I forgot how much I love Superman til just now. Just the ultimate metaphor character, imho.

My point is not that he would not be able to find the third option, but that he is built to have these kinds of superheroic/mythic/epic challenges, better than the superheroes who usually get them. I brought this up because people think that he is supposed to have different kinds of problems other than superheroic ones. You can put Superman in positions where sacrificing himself is the only answer, where two things are happening far enough away that he has to fly as fast as he possibly can and be smart about it to save both, you can question the morality of his power, and show him as physically weak. These are natural key parts of the character.

What you can't do so easily is have Superman be under the weather, you have to make up some random thing. You can't have him have rent trouble, because he could literally just fly to African and bring back a fistfull of diamonds any time, or do insider trading from the outside, or all kinds of stuff. You can't take his company or country from him, he doesn't have that, his special place blew up when he was a baby. He's supposed to be the ultimate good guy, so his out of touchness can't be his weakness, it has to be ours, his temper can't break anything/hurt anyone, he can't be greedy, abusive, deceitful or genuinely have low self esteem like other heroes do. He's not built to have human-scale problems. This is what people are talking about when they say Superman is 'boring.' Human scale problems don't phase him, and instead of building up the mythic problems, people who make superman movies tend to try and super-up the human scale problems and it usually doesn't give us anything good.

That's my theory. Your thoughts?

Excluding any proceeding resurrection, he is now dead. He has also lost if unlike Dday, he hasn't taken him out with him to save the immediate allies around him & the rest of the world. There's also the only other possibility ensuring no casualties beyond a hand. He saves the trolley, then saves MJ. He saves MJ, then saves the trolley. TDK came out 2 years after Superman Returns in which he goes out into to space to hear the entire world simultaneously. Megamind is a great example of a hero who stops wanting to be a hero because that line or work became rote; makes up his own kryptonite to fake his death. That's what these mcguffin weaknesses are for Superman, innately fictitious.
The hero of Megamind instead arises from the fallible villain.
It's Supes trying to fit in & be normal since his simultaneous day & overnight duty would keep him so busy.
He should be stressed out over having that kind of full-time past-time. #notrelatable

 

[DrCosmic]

So... I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing. For instance, my explicit point is that Superman is built for a given conflict, and that people not giving him that conflict is why it's so hard to make moves of him. You give an example of a weak Superman movie that skips that conflict, which supports my point that he is built for that conflict, and undermines your point that he is not, unless you're saying that Superman Returns was a great superman movie? What point is it that you think I'm making? That's sort of the strongest contradiction, but all your facts don't really seem to be addressing my point or the reason I spoke about the various superheroic problems in rotation here.

Kryptonite is inherently fictional, as is Superman's power. Something nearly absolutely requires something nearly absolute in return. When they cancel each other out, you are revealing what was underneath the entire time. It's alchemy, not chemistry. Megamind, the film missed this reality of Superman and used it as a farce with Metroman, but embraced this idea with Megamind himself in which his ultimate conflict is not with his shortcomings, but someone whose power nullifies his abilities until he finds a macguffin to fix it. And the problem only exists because someone twisted his attempts to create another hero and find love while in a civilian disguise. That is not a supervillain problematic ideology or human fallibility that Superman lacks, that is quintessential superhero, and that is what Superman is designed for. He is, in his most very basic concept, the exact kind of "innocent liar" that Megamind's character is, but instead of dealing with that obvious lie, and the consequences thereof, filmmakers tend to instead insist there are different lies about the character.

You bring up another quintessentially superheroic/mythic problem: how do you balance using your power versus not. This is what Megamind was sort of about in positioning Megamind between Titan (overuse) and Metroman (underuse). This is a problem that every superhero should have. There should be a crisis anytime Peter Parker takes off his mask because there are people dying out there and he just says 'that's enough for today.' Iron Man, Captain America. Batman just doesn't Batman during the day, and that's not a problem!? They do not work tirelessly, despite their superhuman stamina, and that issue is rarely if ever addressed. As you point out, Superman demands that that problem be addressed, and the strongest Superman stories do address this in different ways (usually with him not ever clocking out and getting the negative consequences of that). This is why I say that Superman is built for superheroic conflicts, and that the error is in trying to give him human hashtag relatable problems instead. I can't relate to the idea that going about my personal life is a conscious choice to let people die, but it's still an interesting story, because on a higher level, I do relate to the idea of having to choose between being selfish and selfless and not knowing where that balance breaks. That's the humanity behind the hashtag unrelatable, and because creators don't see it, they keep making poor Superman movies, trying to nerf him with something other than Kryptonite instead of giving him the periodic nullification his concept needs, and not asking the obvious questions or exploring the inherent conflicts.

 

[Boy Scout]

As always, Cosmic, you have some very interesting thoughts.

 

[2kt09]

So... I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing. For instance, my explicit point is that Superman is built for a given conflict, and that people not giving him that conflict is why it's so hard to make moves of him. You give an example of a weak Superman movie that skips that conflict, which supports my point that he is built for that conflict, and undermines your point that he is not, unless you're saying that Superman Returns was a great superman movie? What point is it that you think I'm making? That's sort of the strongest contradiction, but all your facts don't really seem to be addressing my point or the reason I spoke about the various superheroic problems in rotation here.

Kryptonite is inherently fictional, as is Superman's power. Something nearly absolutely requires something nearly absolute in return. When they cancel each other out, you are revealing what was underneath the entire time. It's alchemy, not chemistry. Megamind, the film missed this reality of Superman and used it as a farce with Metroman, but embraced this idea with Megamind himself in which his ultimate conflict is not with his shortcomings, but someone whose power nullifies his abilities until he finds a macguffin to fix it. And the problem only exists because someone twisted his attempts to create another hero and find love while in a civilian disguise. That is not a supervillain problematic ideology or human fallibility that Superman lacks, that is quintessential superhero, and that is what Superman is designed for. He is, in his most very basic concept, the exact kind of "innocent liar" that Megamind's character is, but instead of dealing with that obvious lie, and the consequences thereof, filmmakers tend to instead insist there are different lies about the character.

You bring up another quintessentially superheroic/mythic problem: how do you balance using your power versus not. This is what Megamind was sort of about in positioning Megamind between Titan (overuse) and Metroman (underuse). This is a problem that every superhero should have. There should be a crisis anytime Peter Parker takes off his mask because there are people dying out there and he just says 'that's enough for today.' Iron Man, Captain America. Batman just doesn't Batman during the day, and that's not a problem!? They do not work tirelessly, despite their superhuman stamina, and that issue is rarely if ever addressed. As you point out, Superman demands that that problem be addressed, and the strongest Superman stories do address this in different ways (usually with him not ever clocking out and getting the negative consequences of that). This is why I say that Superman is built for superheroic conflicts, and that the error is in trying to give him human hashtag relatable problems instead. I can't relate to the idea that going about my personal life is a conscious choice to let people die, but it's still an interesting story, because on a higher level, I do relate to the idea of having to choose between being selfish and selfless and not knowing where that balance breaks. That's the humanity behind the hashtag unrelatable, and because creators don't see it, they keep making poor Superman movies, trying to nerf him with something other than Kryptonite instead of giving him the periodic nullification his concept needs, and not asking the obvious questions or exploring the inherent conflicts.

I was talking about what you brought up through Batman that was shown two years prior. That conflict is superfluous because we already get it from Superman moving from place to place doing what he does; getting there in the knick of time (and that's not only explicit in the dull as bricks Superman Returns).

It's that level of fiction that detaches us from caring as much as we do for other superheroes that struggle to overcome and win.
The reason it obviously works for Megamind is because he isn't nearly as much of a caricature...spent most of his years trying to be a devil, lost his arch rival, became Promotheus to engineer back the "good life", and realized the truth. He like Metro Man didn't find their natural calling in the world fulfilling.

There is no "off button". He's Santa Claus year-round at every passing second. I don't know which Superman-related things you've been seeing that don't address this selfish/selfless duality.

 

[DrCosmic]

I was talking about what you brought up through Batman that was shown two years prior. That conflict is superfluous because we already get it from Superman moving from place to place doing what he does; getting there in the knick of time (and that's not only explicit in the dull as bricks Superman Returns).

It's that level of fiction that detaches us from caring as much as we do for other superheroes that struggle to overcome and win.
The reason it obviously works for Megamind is because he isn't nearly as much of a caricature...spent most of his years trying to be a devil, lost his arch rival, became Promotheus to engineer back the "good life", and realized the truth. He like Metro Man didn't find their natural calling in the world fulfilling.

I understand you were talking about the act of Superman spying was shown, but what I'm pointing out is that the conflict of superman spying, which should happen, is ignored, and that is why the movie is boring (and blogged about as creepy), because the obvious inherent conflict is never explored. Superman Returns has him zipping about saving things in the nick of time, yeah, but it never explores what he does when two tragedies are happening across town at the same time, the Superman equivalent of the trolley and MJ, and how he cleverly solves both at once, it simply has things happen one at a time, close together, which makes no sense in the context of a huge earthquake, instead of exploiting the obvious fact that Superman can't be in two places at once, no matter how fast he is.

Superman isn't a caricature at all, otherwise Metroman, an actual caricature, would be absurdist instead of clever. Megamind is a caricature that grows into a person. After all, in your words, he starts trying to be a devil, which is not a real human shortcoming, literally no one does that. Megamind is, at his very core concept, a caricature of a villain with epic mythic problems like having a natural calling - another thing that's not hashtag relatable - and not finding it fulfilling. Superman also has a natural calling, so to speak, and the comic with the trucker and Lex Luthor most recently quoted in this thread works so brilliantly and naturally because it deals with the reality that a hyperstrong person who constantly does good for good's sake would be unfulfilled by how the world doesn't change when he does good.

The more we talk about it, the more Megamind is kind of the perfect framework for a Superman movie, and the only reason Superman movies don't have similar appeal full of fun conflict is because they pretend that Superman would be fulfilled, even though he shouldn't be, they pretend that lying to Lois all the time wouldn't be a problem, even though it should, they pretend physical problems all happen one at a time close together, even though they shouldn't, they pretend that sharing his powers/technolgy/DNA with others wouldn't create supervillains, even though it should, they pretend spying on people wouldn't be seen as criminal/villainous, even though it should, they pretend that there's not a thing that is as fictional and unbeatable as Titan is to Megamind and requires cleverness to beat, even though there is in Kryptonite. These, dare I say, undeniable truths about Superman are at the core of his basic concept. This is my core argument, and I suspect it is unassailable. I suspect these simple realities are in a blind spot for most filmmakers because other superheroes tend to also pretend these things shouldn't be a problem and focus on more human relatable issues like social stressors, money problems and character defects. Megamind is a good film, not because the character is hashtag relatable, but because it embraces all these mythic conflicts that are basic to the superhero idea it's a caricature of.

There is no "off button". He's Santa Claus year-round at every passing second. I don't know which Superman-related things you've been seeing that don't address this selfish/selfless duality.

A PERFECT analogy. The reason people can't make good Santa Claus movies is because they don't address the fact that obvious conflict that he's breaking and entering into people's houses all the time, and that should be a huge problem. Really, stop and think about the actual consequences of breaking into people's houses and giving things to their children year round. No one stops and thinks, they just pretend the conflict that is built into the basis of the character isn't there. This conflict that is always on because he is always on. And so Santa Claus is seen as a bland overpowered too perfect character. It's not a coincidence that the best movie about Santa Claus that's not about his replacement is the one where he both has no character defects and is also on trial, as he should be.

It's the same with Superman, in fact, you can almost set your watch by whether being Clark Kent, lying and using his morally questionable powers is a problem. If the natural conflicts of the character play into the plot, like in Superman I & II, you get a good Superman movie. If they don't, like in III, IV, Superman Returns, Batman v Superman and Justice League, you get a bad Superman movie. You just eschew the personal life altogether so that being Clark Kent is neither convenient nor problematic, you get something divisive, like Man of Steel.

As always, Cosmic, you have some very interesting thoughts.

Thanks Boy Scout!

 

[Vader's Fist]

Never thought I'd start a thread on this site that would reach 850 posts. Quite an accomplishment, lol.

Anyway, more of a rant than anything related to the title, but the fact that Superman stepping out of the shadows, in a nearly decade old DC Cinematic Universe, was treated like a big deal really says more about the management of this whole thing than anything else ever could.



I mean, by this point the audience should have been well past the point of cheering at Superman showing up. Their reaction should now be something like "Oh, Superman. Cool, I guess". In their minds, they should be preparing to let go of him and for him to pass the torch to a new generation of heroes.

In summary, Superman should, by this point, have been only about one movie away from having his own version of "I am Iron Man" or Steve passing the shield, not only just beginning to properly establish his presence in the universe. Doesn't matter what way you slice, it that's ridiculous.