Comics Creators on Superman in Live Action

[The Laughing Fish]

I thought it would be a good idea for this thread to collect quotes from comic book artists and writers on their opinions of live action Superman films and TV shows. Similar to the "Comics Creators on the Batman Movies" thread.

Allow me to get the ball rolling.

Paul Dini's first impressions on Superman Returns when it was released in 2006:

Yeah, I saw the new SUPERMAN movie.

Eh, it was okay.

Considering the train wreck it could have been it was outstanding, but as it was, to me at least, it was just okay.

Given Superman's history in comics, movies, radio, television and a dozen other places, I was disappointed that the filmmakers looked only as far as the two movies made in the late 70's for their inspiration. But Superman, both as a character and as an entire concept, is much richer than those films. Clark the bumbler, the barely developed Daily Planet staff (besides Lois), the Superman/Clark/Lois triangle, goddamn wacky Lex and his daffy henchmoll du jour, ugh. Enough. You clowns are spending, when all is said and done, 300 million dollars. Show me something I can't get at the video rental store. Screw the fact THE INCREDIBLES is a cartoon, give me a story that's better than that, because animated or not, THE INCREDIBLES is the new gold standard for superhero movies. SUPERMAN RETURNS was in live-action (partially) and it felt like a cartoon, a flat, boring one. THE INCREDIBLES had characters that were compelling, some cool plot twists, great action sequences, and a villain's plot that, while not the most original, actually made sense. Weren't too many of those elements in SUPERMAN RETURNS.

I liked bits and pieces -- Eva Marie Saint, Brandon Routh, the Smallville flashbacks, Superman seen via a security camera foiling a convenience store robbery, the whole saving the plane sequence. Sweet raisins in a bowl of bland oatmeal.

Then again, I saw it for free, so what right do I have to complain?

Judging by the way he made fun of the Christopher Reeve films in the quote above, Dini doesn't seem to be a big fan of them. 

http://kingofbreakfast.livejournal.com/31840.html


Bruce Timm on Man of Steel:

A couple years back, when 'Man of Steel' came out, I remember the frenzy of the fans when they said, "Oh, I can't believe Superman killed General Zod! Superman would never do that." When I was watching the movie, my first thought was, "Well, dang, I wanted to do that in the Doomsday movie, when we had Superman versus Doomsday'. I was going to have Superman do exactly the same deed. Doomsday was going to be getting ready to kill some innocent bystanders, and Superman was already mortally wounded, and he was going to use his last bit of strength to break Doomsday's neck.

DC wouldn't let me do it. I said, 'OK, well this version of Superman can do that.' Nobody could ever say Superman can't do that. This version of Superman, we don't know what he's going to do.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/bruce-timm-on-zack-snyders-man-of-steel-ending-i-wanted-to-do-that

Mark Waid on Superman Returns:

VENTRELLA: Have to ask: Knowing how much you love the original, what do you think of "Superman Returns"? What's your opinion on the current crop of movies based on comics and graphic novels?

WAID: Being a minority of one, I liked "Superman Returns." I can see its flaws, but it truly was like Bryan Singer was making a movie specifically for me.

https://michaelaventrella.com/2009/09/26/interview-with-mark-waid/

Mark Waid again, this time explaining his less-than-enthusiastic take on Man of Steel:

"Some crazy guy in front of us was muttering 'Don't do it...don't do it...DON'T DO IT...' and then Superman snapped Zod's neck and that guy stood up and said in a very loud voice, 'THAT'S IT, YOU LOST ME, I'M OUT,' and his girlfriend had to literally pull him back into his seat and keep him from walking out and that crazy guy was me. That crazy guy was me, and I barely even remember doing that, I had to be told afterward that I'd done that, that's how caught up in betrayal I felt. And after the neck-snapping, even though I stuck it out, I didn't give a damn about the rest of the movie."

"I guess the reaction to my review was disappointing to me a little, because while most people seemed to get it, there's been a reductive aspersion cast on it by a lot of people. More and more I've seen, "Read here why Mark Waid hates Man of Steel." Well, that's not what I said...  I was broken hearted, I was disappointed, I was gutted by that one scene as much as anything else or certainly the last third of the movie, but I also liked a lot of things about it. I even kind of understand why they went that way, so this isn't, "It's not my Superman," or "Why can't it be like the '50s when I was growing up?" It's not that at all. It's more the idea of, man, there's just no heart or charm, especially in that last third of the movie. It's just destruction porn."

"I think that seems to be the overall feeling from a lot of people, that this is the first step. But nobody knew it was going to be a trilogy going in!... If I wanted to see Boy of Steel I would have seen Boy of Steel... I understand that you want growth and development and stuff, but I just want a little more pay off to that. It reminds me very much of the thing you loathe hearing from freelancers and writers when you're a publisher or editor, because I get this a lot – every publisher and every editor gets it – you get someone turning in a first issue and... nothing big has happened or there's something missing, and the answer is always, "Wait till you get to issue three." Oh, shut up! "We have to set the stage!" Stop setting the stage and get on with the play. That's my kneejerk reaction to the point of, well he's just learning. But that's not what it was sold as, that's not what we thought we were getting. We thought we were getting a Superman movie, and we got a Superman in training movie."

"I've talked over and over to the people at DC over the last ten years, and I know what WB's feeling is about Superman, which is that he's stupid, he's corny and why can't he be more like Batman? Well, because he's not Batman, but there's nothing Hollywood loves more than safe bets. So that certainly always informs the tone and direction that this movie was going to have. We always knew once they got serious about it that it was going to be a darker, more brooding take, but I kind of thought there would be a little wiggle room there."

http://sciencefiction.com/2013/07/09/mark-waid-addresses-his-negative-reaction-to-man-of-steel-spoilers/

[The Laughing Fish]

Cary Bates on Superman III...:

Q: In the early 1980s, you met and developed a friendship and business relationship with "Superman" movie Producer Ilya Salkind. How did that come about?

A: Halfway through production of Superman III, DC sent me to Pinewood studios in 1983 as their official representative in meetings with Ilya, Pierre Spengler, Richard Lester and Leslie and David Newman. There were concerns over the tone of the film leaning too much toward Richard Pryor at Superman's expense, but we were stymied by Lester and our efforts proved to be too little too late. But it was the beginning of my long-running association and friendship with Ilya, which continues to this day (we have a project currently in development I'm not at liberty to discuss).

...on producer Ilya Salkind...:

Q: Ilya Salkind's gotten kind of a bad rap by fans over the years, particularly over the issues with Richard Donner, but you worked with him on "Superman III", "The Adventures of Superboy", "Christopher Columbus: The Discovery", and the unmade "Superman V" script. Do you have any insights on the man?

A: What the naysayers seem to overlook is that without Ilya's vision and ambition, Superman I - which provided the template for most of the super-hero movies that have come since - might not have happened at all. Ilya was the first to see the potential Superman had as a big budget film with A-level talent at a time when the rest of the business considered comic book properties Saturday morning material at best. Even the '60's Batman TV show only attained its brief surge in the ratings by trashing and ridiculing the source material. With respect to Superman III, most fans are not aware that the most interesting (and praised) elements of the film - the schizophrenic split and fight between the evil Superman and the heroic Clark - were Ilya's concepts. The hokey super-computer and emphasis on Richard Pryor scenes were coming from the Lester camp, no pun intended. If Superman Reborn - which contained many more of Ilya's concepts - had reached the screen, it would have gone a long way toward erasing the so-called 'bad rap' you speak of.

... and why his Superman V script never got off the ground:

Q: How far did the "Superman V" project get as you recall? I understand Chris Reeve considered returning to the role. Why do you think the project never happened?

A: We were in the initial stages of pre-production. The film had been budgeted and they had hired a production designer who came up with some great stuff (I can still recall his kick-ass designs for Brainiac's ship). Unfortunately, other forces were at work we weren't aware of at the time. Final script approval never came down from Warners because they had their own plans for the character - the newly commissioned Lois and Clark series. It wasn't long after that when the Salkinds began negotiations to sell all their Superman rights back to the studio. Given the success of the Superman films and the more recent Batman franchise, by the early '90's WB had realized in hindsight they were remiss in letting go of the rights to their flagship comic book character.

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/interviews/interviews-intro.php?topic=c-interview_bates

[The Laughing Fish]

When Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel was in a bitter court battle with DC Comics over his pension, this was what he said of the Richard Donner film before it opened in theatres:

I hope it super-bombs. I hope loyal Superman fans stay away from it in droves. I hope the whole world, becoming aware of the stench that surrounds Superman, will avoid the movie like the plague.

The publishers of Superman comic books, National Periodical Publications Inc (aka DC Comics), killed my days, murdered my nights, choked my happiness, strangled my career. I consider National's executives economic murderers, money-mad monsters.

http://www.planetslade.com/superheroes8.html

According to urban legend, this put a "curse" on the franchise. This was sad to read. There would be nothing worse than creating a character that captivates millions, yet the treatment by your employers could make you denounce it.


Neal Adams on Man of Steel:

And then at the end, what did he do? He killed a guy. Can't he put his hand over his eyes? I'm just saying put your hand over his eyes. That would stop it pretty much. One arm is around the throat, put the other hand in front of his eyes. That's pretty much it. Take him off to the moon or Saudi Arabia or someplace, and finish the battle there. The other thing that they did, too. I don't know. There's like a rivet in the back of what-his-name's head that makes his eyes not move like our eyes can move. Like there are people over there...all I have to do is go like that, and they're dead. Why are his eyes traveling the movement of his head?

Why were they fighting in Metropolis? I don't understand. Even the Kelvinator movies - I'm sorry I was just joking - the robot movies - Transformers movies - they went to Saudi Arabia to fight. They're knocking down the Sphinx and stuff, but there are not so many people. They're in the middle of nowhere. They could have gone on the moon, but as soon as Superman hits a building, it's going to fall down. Didn't we lose 500 people there? It feels weird.

Neal Adams again, this time on Superman Returns:

You would think they would be super-sensitive with this movie, and not make those kinds of stupid mistakes. Because the previous movie [Superman Returns] had more kryptonite than you could ever have and still Superman was alive. You had a whole island of Kryptonite, and then you had him go away for - I don't know - they said I think six or seven years. They said five years, but he comes back and the kid's twelve years old. He's got a bastard son. That changes the plot a whole lot. I don't understand where that came from. You would think after that movie they would be very careful about what they wrote so you would go, 'Ah, thank goodness, I'm fine with this now.' But no, it just made everybody more nervous, while Marvel is doing all these great movies.

http://www.cosmicbooknews.com/content/neal-adams-slams-man-steel-superman-returns

[riddler]

I'm not overly superstitious but maybe there is a notion of truth to the curse? There hasn't been a truly good superman film since superman II and even that wasn't as good as it could have been due to the Donner treatment. The poor character has been kicked around in every film
Superman III was too comedic
Superman IV was just a low budget train wreck
Superman returns was deprived of action
Man of steel was dull and depressing
Batman v Superman; well we know the criticisms

The only film to go as expected was the first one. And the history of the character in video games is even worse than the big screen.

[The Laughing Fish]

Out of all the Reeve films, only the 1978 film holds up for me, although the third act does have some egregious plot holes that you'd have to turn a blind eye to.

As much as I liked Reeve and Terrence Stamp in Superman II, I felt the idea behind Clark giving up being Superman was deeply flawed, but I suppose it allowed him to redeem himself in the end. But the conflicting ideas and personalities between Richard Donner and the producers does hurt the quality of the film for my liking, and the plot doesn't feel that well thought out. Particularly The Richard Donner Cut, except for the Jor-El scenes.

Superman III had some good ideas with Superman fighting a corrupt version of himself, but the overall film wasn't my cup of tea. Though the hatred for it does feel overblown, as it was for MOS and BvS.

Speaking of BvS, I seriously wonder why couldn't WB make the film two hours and forty five minutes long to fit some of the Ultimate Edition scenes? The deleted Clark Kent scenes and how the how the Africa sequence was supposed to be made the plot much better. If The Dark Knight Rises could have such a long running time, why not BvS?

As for Superman Returns? The only thing I ever liked about that movie was scenes where Superman rescued people here and there, but overall, it felt like a misguided tribute to the Donner film. And even nowadays the scenes where Superman saves people, such as saving the plane and landing it into the baseball stadium, doesn't hold up nowadays because it's so long.

Here is what Elliot S! Maggin said about Superman Returns and the Smallville TV series in a 2009 interview with Superman Homepage:

I liked Superman Returns. They did two things really deftly: (1) they dealt effectively with Superman's absence the day the Trade Center fell, much better than we ever did justifying his apparent absence during World War II, and (2) the disposition of the relationship with Lois was, I thought, just perfect and appropriately bittersweet. I hope the movie continuity progresses from that point.

I keep referring to the Smallville show as Superboy. I love it, actually. The guys putting it together really understand the mythology of it - the way Mario Puzo did before his producers tripped him up. The way you can only understand it if you're Greek or Italian or a serious geek. I've had an idea kicking around my head for a cool episode since the show began, but I haven't found a spare couple of weeks to write a spec script. I should, shouldn't I? I did that with Lois and Clark, also late, and the story editor I took it to said he loved it but it didn't fit in with that year's continuity. The previous year they would have scooped it right up, he said. Maybe. Turned out that was the last year. You know, I never thought he should marry Lois - no matter what Mort Weisinger promised a thousand years ago. I mean he "should" marry Lois in the sense of making an honest woman of her and all - but for storytelling purposes, they should never hook up successfully. Only tragically. Like Romeo and Juliet. Zeus and Leda. Batman and Talia. Know what I mean?

http://www.supermanhomepage.com/comics/interviews/interviews-intro.php?topic=c-interview_maggin

[thecolorsblend]

Cary Bates on Superman III...:

Q: In the early 1980s, you met and developed a friendship and business relationship with "Superman" movie Producer Ilya Salkind. How did that come about?

A: Halfway through production of Superman III, DC sent me to Pinewood studios in 1983 as their official representative in meetings with Ilya, Pierre Spengler, Richard Lester and Leslie and David Newman. There were concerns over the tone of the film leaning too much toward Richard Pryor at Superman's expense, but we were stymied by Lester and our efforts proved to be too little too late. But it was the beginning of my long-running association and friendship with Ilya, which continues to this day (we have a project currently in development I'm not at liberty to discuss).

Not to derail this thread on page 1 but I really respect Bates for having this opinion. I'm a bit of an Ilya apologist and have been for quite a while. Superman III has a tone along the lines of any average Cary Bates Superman story one might have read during the Bronze Age. Try though I might, I cannot fathom how Superman III couldn't have been entirely ripped from the comics of the time. Not all Bronze Age comics were like that... but a ton of them were EXACTLY like that. Very underrated film.

[The Laughing Fish]

John Byrne on how Superman II fared even better than Superman '78 for some critics back in 2005:

To psychobabble a bit, I was stunned by the number of critics and reviewers who professed to prefer II over I --- until I thought about it. "Superman - The Movie" was the first Hollywood treatment of superheroes to follow Adam West's "Batman", and it broke the mold that TV series had taught civilians to expect. Not only did it not lampoon the characters, it actually demanded that the whole thing be taken seriously! Critics gave it high marks, and the box office was phenomenal -- but the next one did better, both in dollars and reviews, and I think it was because it gave the audience permission to laugh at the characters again. Fortunately, we saw precisely the reverse of this with the Batman franchise begun by Tim Burton's film -- the less seriously the subject was taken, the worse the reviews and the lower the box office. I am not prepared to assume this means the shadow of "Batman" (Adam West) has finally stretched so thin as to no longer be noticable -- but it does give some hope. Well, until the rip-offs of "The Incredibles" get rolling.

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8720&PN=0&TPN=2

Dan Jurgens comparing the way Superman kills Zod in Man of Steel and in Superman #22:

It [Superman #22] was hugely controversial and I think if the Internet had existed at that time, it would have been that times three.

I always thought that if Superman was going to be put in that position, that it had to be a more immediate threat. It didn't bother me so much, Superman killing the Kryptonians, as it was him being just a stone-cold executioner. If you think of that cover -- there's a green cover and I think it was Superman itself where he's actually wearing the hood like an executioner would wear. That was, to me, the problem. If you wanted to have Superman kill the Kryptonians, I think it had to be a situation where innocent life was in immediate peril and the only way to stop them from taking innocent life was to kill them. At that point, Superman makes the same decision, but he's much more Superman as part of that. And the funny thing is, everybody gets twisted in knots over of that scene in the movie -- yet that's what Superman did.

When Superman kills Zod in the movie, it's because there are human beings there who are in immediate danger. The problem with the comic book was, I always thought, not that Superman did it as it was the way he did it, because he was judge, jury and executioner right there. And it was a police officer walking right up to an individual who had dropped his gun, dropped his knife, said 'I surrender,' waved the white flag...and still [blowing] his head off. That's basically what it was.

http://comicbook.com/2015/07/06/superman-legend-dan-jurgens-man-of-steel-handled-zods-death-bett/

Not to derail this thread on page 1 but I really respect Bates for having this opinion. I'm a bit of an Ilya apologist and have been for quite a while. Superman III has a tone along the lines of any average Cary Bates Superman story one might have read during the Bronze Age. Try though I might, I cannot fathom how Superman III couldn't have been entirely ripped from the comics of the time. Not all Bronze Age comics were like that... but a ton of them were EXACTLY like that. Very underrated film.

Colors, I heard that Ilya Salkind wrote a treatment that featured Brainiac, Mr Mtzlsptlk and Supergirl but it was rejected. Is that true? A part me of wished they went for those characters instead of Ross Webster aka Lex Luthor 2, and Gus Gorman.

If you don't mind me asking, what did you think of Mark Waid's comment about Superman Returns "felt like it was made for him" and his disappointment in MOS? Do you suppose he appreciated SR only for the Superman rescue scenes? Because I'd be surprised if it's for the story, there's very little of it.

[The Dark Knight]

For a while, I didn't think Superman had the quality content behind him like Batman. While in some respects that is still true, given Batman's embarrassment of riches with top quality TV shows, games, comics and movies....Superman doesn't fare that badly. Superman78 is a classic. No doubt about it. Superman II, the theatrical cut, is also a good movie which builds on the original. It increases the stakes and explores the hero in more depth. I won't mention Superman III or IV, or Superman Returns, because they don't do much for me. But I really dig Man of Steel, and it's my favourite Superman film. The BvS Ultimate Cut is also fantastic for Superman. So that's four movies with big blue that I hold in high regard. And with Cavill in the role for the long term, that number will surely rise.

Superman TAS is something to treasure. It's one of the best interpretations of the character you'll find. I will always have a soft spot for Lois and Clark with Dean Cain and Terri Hatcher. In fact, Dean remains my favourite Clark Kent. Good natured, charismatic cool. Smallville isn't exactly my cup of tea, but it did have its moments. So there's three programs that I can hold up and say 'these are worthy of my time'.

But the real heart and soul of the character remains in the comics. To the extent my Superman graphic novel collection has doubled. The best Superman stories are just as good as anything Batman has to offer. All Star Superman could mount a serious case for being the best superhero comic of all time. It's that good. Red Son is Elseworlds at its finest. I could go on, but needless to say, Superman has real depth in the comics. There's no shortage of good stories to enjoy.

[thecolorsblend]

Colors, I heard that Ilya Salkind wrote a treatment that featured Brainiac, Mr Mtzlsptlk and Supergirl but it was rejected. Is that true? A part me of wished they went for those characters instead of Ross Webster aka Lex Luthor 2, and Gus Gorman.

True. The basic story would've been largely similar (eg, "Superman goes bad for a while there") but the characters would've been different.

If you don't mind me asking, what did you think of Mark Waid's comment about Superman Returns "felt like it was made for him" and his disappointment in MOS? Do you suppose he appreciated SR only for the Superman rescue scenes? Because I'd be surprised if it's for the story, there's very little of it.

I've never been able to fathom Waid's fascination with Superman Returns. He routinely talks about the plane rescue scene as some sort of high watermark. Broadly he's described that movie as "his own Superman". That's the way he's pretty much always viewed Superman. It's worth saying that he describes seeing Superman: The Movie for the first time in almost salvific terms. Seeing that movie changed his life. Maybe even saved it.

The thing I disliked about the Superman Returns movie was the American Christ angle, which reduced Superman to a sniveling, masochistic wreck, crawling around on the floor, taking a kicking from everyone. This approach had an odd and slightly disturbing S&M flavor, which didn't play well to the character's strengths at all and seemed to derive entirely from a kind of Catholic vision of the suffering, martyred Jesus.
- Grant Morrison, 2008

[The Dark Knight]

Singerman Returns stunted Superman's cinematic growth in my eyes. I think Superman III and IV are disappointing, but I wouldn't go and pretend they didn't exist. But that's what Singerman Returns does. Snyder of Steel represented a new broom who swept away the cobwebs. New soundtrack, aesthetic style, suit overhaul....everything.

Snyder of Steel had the bravery to break away from the 'good old days'. A long overdue act, that was equivalent to killing Bambi to diehard Reeve/Williams/Donner fans. But hey. It's not 1978 anymore. Apples don't cost a nickel. Not in here, not out there.