Comics Creators on Superman in Live Action

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

Superman '78 definitely had a strong impact for a lot of people, maybe even inspired many artists like Waid to get involved in the comics industry. For better or worse, the movie has always had a powerful legacy.

Gary Frank on why he models nearly every Superman design on Christopher Reeve:

Christopher Reeve so completely inhabited the character Superman when he was in that costume, and that had such a huge effect on me as a child, watching those films back in the '70s. There was so much of that character that was, for me, Superman. I don't think I've felt quite the same way about an actor portraying Batman, especially not in terms of our Batman.

http://www.newsarama.com/9888-gary-frank-on-who-batman-earth-one-is-for-its-future.html

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.

Trying to retcon a film series that was decades old was a mistake. Never mind the fact none of the 2006 cast look anything like the class of 1978, too much time had passed for audiences to make a real connection. It would be like if they tried to make a sequel to B89 and BR twenty four years later, while ignoring the Schumacher movies. You could repeat all the memorable catch phrases and lines from the original Burton films all you want, it still wouldn't be the same if the guy playing Batman isn't Michael Keaton. I'd rather reboot the whole thing instead.

I'll admit that I had low expectations when MOS was coming out three years ago, because I wasn't too impressed with the idea of using Zod again, exploring the origin story again and so forth. But once I found out this wasn't simply just a coming of age story for Clark in the sense that it does raise questions of how humanity could react to something like a powerful being from another world (which gets explored further in BvS), and how he chose the people of Earth over his own heritage, I was glad to give it a chance and appreciate it. It's not without its flaws, but it definitely has its merits.

[Dagenspear]

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.

There's no real breaking away of it as far as I can tell. There's similar story structures, thematic and story elements. There's not much fresh to me, beyond tone and performance, along with the alteration of a directorial lens. I've said before that I think MOS is basically the same as the originals, but filtered through a post TDKT, post cynicism, post Raimi Spider-Man movies viewpoint.

Trying to retcon a film series that was decades old was a mistake. Never mind the fact none of the 2006 cast look anything like the class of 1978, too much time had passed for audiences to make a real connection. It would be like if they tried to make a sequel to B89 and BR twenty four years later, while ignoring the Schumacher movies. You could repeat all the memorable catch phrases and lines from the original Burton films all you want, it still wouldn't be the same if the guy playing Batman isn't Michael Keaton. I'd rather reboot the whole thing instead.

Eh. Batman and Superman can both be recast. There's no inherent application to a face or voice for the characters, so yes, they can do that. Though not by ignoring the other movies. There's no real reason for that. Though I will say that I appreciate that SR never officially rejected the other movies in film, as much as they just didn't talk about them. And I disagree, I think Brandon Routh looks a little bit like Christopher Reeve, same with Kevin Spacey with Gene Hackman.

I'll admit that I had low expectations when MOS was coming out three years ago, because I wasn't too impressed with the idea of using Zod again, exploring the origin story again and so forth. But once I found out this wasn't simply just a coming of age story for Clark in the sense that it does raise questions of how humanity could react to something like a powerful being from another world (which gets explored further in BvS), and how he chose the people of Earth over his own heritage, I was glad to give it a chance and appreciate it. It's not without its flaws, but it definitely has its merits.

Very few things are without their merits. But MOS's idea just isn't really fleshed out to me. It should have been to me. Which is a sticking point for me. So, as far as I can tell, there's not much of a difference between MOS and Reeve I/II movies, with exception of the tone and performances, which is another issue I have with it. It encases the same issues as the originals and even repeats similar aspects of SR, only a little heavier.

God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

I'll admit that I had low expectations when MOS was coming out three years ago, because I wasn't too impressed with the idea of using Zod again, exploring the origin story again and so forth. But once I found out this wasn't simply just a coming of age story for Clark in the sense that it does raise questions of how humanity could react to something like a powerful being from another world (which gets explored further in BvS), and how he chose the people of Earth over his own heritage, I was glad to give it a chance and appreciate it. It's not without its flaws, but it definitely has its merits.

Very few things are without their merits. But MOS's idea just isn't really fleshed out to me. It should have been to me. Which is a sticking point for me. So, as far as I can tell, there's not much of a difference between MOS and Reeve I/II movies, with exception of the tone and performances, which is another issue I have with it. It encases the same issues as the originals and even repeats similar aspects of SR, only a little heavier.[/quote]Irrespective of whether you're right, I think you're underestimating the value of putting a new coat of paint on something.

MOS offers a story accessible to literally anybody, modern effects and a more modern tone while not betraying anything inviolable about Superman.

Superman is different from Batman inasmuch as Batman can be portrayed any number of different ways. Superman isn't quite as malleable. You have flexibility; just not as much flexibility.

What SR teaches us is that the under 35-crowd of circa 2006 hadn't seen STM. STM as a film isn't as iconic and popular as people originally assumed.

It doesn't help the comparison that Snyder set out to make a Superman film while Singer set out to make a chick-flick.

[Dagenspear]

Irrespective of whether you're right, I think you're underestimating the value of putting a new coat of paint on something.

MOS offers a story accessible to literally anybody, modern effects and a more modern tone while not betraying anything inviolable about Superman.

Superman is different from Batman inasmuch as Batman can be portrayed any number of different ways. Superman isn't quite as malleable. You have flexibility; just not as much flexibility.

What SR teaches us is that the under 35-crowd of circa 2006 hadn't seen STM. STM as a film isn't as iconic and popular as people originally assumed.

It doesn't help the comparison that Snyder set out to make a Superman film while Singer set out to make a chick-flick.

What's wrong with chick flicks? And SR isn't that as I understand it. I'm under 35 and I'd seen STM. Not that that matters, because I don't really think it's very well done. I wouldn't call the story accessible, but it doesn't really have modern effects and it's modern tone isn't really something that's needed. But I find a new coat of paint to be pointless to quality. That's like saying having a killer have facial reconstructive surgery to look like Mother Teresa will make them not be a killer. It's just aesthetics.

[thecolorsblend]

What's wrong with chick flicks?

I don't want Superman to be the star of a multi-hundred million dollar chick flick. So there's that.

And SR isn't that as I understand it.

It is as Bryan Singer understands it.

"[Superman Returns] was a movie made for a certain kind of audience. Perhaps more of a female audience."
- Bryan Singer, 2014
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman/bryan-singer-wishes-he-had-rebooted-superman-wanted-darkseid-for-returns-a93794

"I really do think I was making [Superman Returns] for that Devil Wears Prada audience of women who wouldn't normally come to a superhero film."
- Bryan Singer, 2011
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/superman/superman-exclusive-bryan-singer-looks-back-at-superman-returns-a33821

Lest anybody believe this is (relatively) recent spin, this is a line Singer was using even when the movie came out.

"Oh, yeah. [Superman Returns] is my first chick flick."
- Bryan Singer, 2006
http://www.newsweek.com/flying-leap-112695

I'm under 35 and I'd seen STM.

Good on you but we don't represent the normies and civilians... most of the ones under 35 back in 2006 manifestly had never seen STM and knew nothing about it.

I wouldn't call the story accessible,

"Zod invades Earth and only Superman can stop him!" It's hard to think of a more basic, accessible story than that. It's accessible in the big picture and in the fine details. It is more or less the movie Singer should've made but didn't.

but it doesn't really have modern effects

The effects were made in 2012 and maybe a bit in 2013. That was modern at the time MOS was released. They are and look modern.

and it's modern tone isn't really something that's needed.

If SR's numbers are anything to judge by, Superman desperately needed to be modernized.

But I find a new coat of paint to be pointless to quality.

The tone and style are part of the total package. They ultimately helped MOS at the box office. They may not matter to you but they DO, in fact, matter.

That's like saying having a killer have facial reconstructive surgery to look like Mother Teresa will make them not be a killer. It's just aesthetics.

Oh wow...

[Dagenspear]

I don't want Superman to be the star of a multi-hundred million dollar chick flick. So there's that.

There's very little chick-flickyness involved in SR. Unless character drama is what appeals to women. Though, if there's no character drama, then I don't see the point to any show or movie. I could play a video game to watch characters punch eachother There's a lot of character drama, for instance in TDKT, or even BR, but I wouldn't call either of those a chick flick. Though I find the term personally a little demeaning.

Good on you but we don't represent the normies and civilians... most of the ones under 35 back in 2006 manifestly had never seen STM and knew nothing about it.

That seems like an assumption. Not that a lot haven't. But that most haven't. Though not taking a liking for the Donner films, writing wise, I can say that I liked the movie, without a deep affection for the originals that it was based on.

"Zod invades Earth and only Superman can stop him!" It's hard to think of a more basic, accessible story than that. It's accessible in the big picture and in the fine details. It is more or less the movie Singer should've made but didn't.

I misconstrued what you said then. But accessibility doesn't have to mean that something isn't fully developed. But I think what should have been done is up for debate.

The effects were made in 2012 and maybe a bit in 2013. That was modern at the time MOS was released. They are and look modern.

Oh. You were talking about cgi? Meh.

If SR's numbers are anything to judge by, Superman desperately needed to be modernized.

Many things make good or bad numbers. It doesn't equal them being good or bad.

The tone and style are part of the total package. They ultimately helped MOS at the box office. They may not matter to you but they DO, in fact, matter.

Not to quality. To popularity, likely.

[thecolorsblend]

There's very little chick-flickyness involved in SR. Unless character drama is what appeals to women.

Is it your contention that relationshippy drama concerning who dumped whom, who didn't say goodbye, who the baby-daddy might be, etc, is fodder for a conventional action movie?

Though, if there's no character drama, then I don't see the point to any show or movie.

I really admire the way you're attempting to frame the issue as being one about "character drama" in general rather than specifically "romantic drama". It not only flies in the face of the facts but also the director's own words over a nearly ten year period as quoted in this very thread. Nice!

I could play a video game to watch characters punch eachother There's a lot of character drama, for instance in TDKT, or even BR, but I wouldn't call either of those a chick flick. Though I find the term personally a little demeaning.

Again, a truly masterful effort toward reframing the discussion away from a romantic relationship-oriented movie to a general character piece.

PS: The lack of action in Superman Returns is one of the many gripes people have with it. So even if I were to accept your "drama" premise (and I don't), the movie still wasn't what a big summer tentpole needs to be.

That seems like an assumption.

One borne out by the facts, luckily enough.

Though not taking a liking for the Donner films, writing wise, I can say that I liked the movie, without a deep affection for the originals that it was based on.

The price of tea in China. Specifically, what does your comment have to do with it? It's well and good that you personally enjoyed the movie. Wonderful, I'm thrilled. But most people were disinterested from the outset... as evidenced by the movie's fairly paltry box office showing.

But accessibility doesn't have to mean that something isn't fully developed. But I think what should have been done is up for debate.

Not really. Snyder's approach was successful. Singer's approach was not. Ergo, if commercial success is one of the motivations behind crafting a multi-hundred million dollar film (as I assume it would be), clearly Snyder made the right decisions.

Many things make good or bad numbers.

Indeed. Consumer disinterest, for example, leads to bad numbers. There was widespread consumer disinterest in Singer's movie. Thus the bad numbers.

The tone and style are part of the total package. They ultimately helped MOS at the box office. They may not matter to you but they DO, in fact, matter.

Interestingly, this comment about tone and style leading to popularity inspired you to write:

Not to quality. To popularity, likely.

Thank you for deciding to agree with me. It's very big of you to change your opinion to match mine in the face of the facts I've presented. I admire you for that, it's a good show of character on your part.

[The Dark Knight]

I don't want Superman to be the star of a multi-hundred million dollar chick flick. So there's that.

Yep. Superman Returns is a chick flick. Plain and simple. Singer outright says it in the quotes you provided. It's the heartwarming tale of a deadbeat, stalking dad. It just doesn't do much for me.

There's plenty fresh with Man of Steel.

We have:

Jor-El as a man of action riding lizards and generally kicking ass.
Jor-El killed prior to Krypton exploding.
Krypton finally not depicted as a frozen igloo.
Clark bullied relentlessly as a child.
Clark disturbed by the extent of his powers, namely x-ray vision.
Pa Kent getting sucked into a tornado en route to Oz.
Clark working in places other than just the Daily Planet - at the diner, as a fisherman, etc.
The government and army suspicious of Superman despite agreeing to accept his help.
No magic fixes to problems – Zod with his neck snapped and time not rewound.

Snyder's Superman also actively engaged in combat by punching his enemies. Singer just had Superman lifting things over and over. Oh so boring. Give me the man of action any day. And twice on Sundays.

Snyder's approach was absolutely fresh, and to some, a shock to the system. Singer was on autopilot, trying to ride off the coat-tails of John Williams and other creative talent from back in the day. And what he did add didn't do himself any favours.

[thecolorsblend]

Jor-El as a man of action riding lizards and generally kicking ass.

I loved this whole sequence so much that I was willing to overlook how rushed all the Krypton stuff was.

Jor-El killed prior to Krypton exploding.

Ballsy.

Pa Kent getting sucked into a tornado en route to Oz.

This was the Joe Chill moment of the movie. In Begins, it would've been logical for Nolan to cast a teenager/early 20-something to play young Bruce who tries to kill Joe Chill. But Nolan wanted the audience to associate Bruce's actions and words with Bruce. So even though Bale looked totally silly in that wig and thick makeup, Nolan had Bale play those scenes anyway.

Snyder had the same idea when Jonathan died in the tornado. It would've made more sense to have Dylan Sprayberry play young Clark in that scene too. But Snyder wanted us to associate Clark's decision to let Jonathan go Henry Cavill. It was a brave decision... and one people intuitively understood judging by the vitriol that scene inspired. I totally believe if Sprayberry had played Clark in that scene, the outrage would've been significantly less.

No magic fixes to problems – Zod with his neck snapped and time not rewound.

This moment really separated the men from the boys among Superman fans. People who don't seem to mind too much that Superman killed Zod in Superman II (after torturing him), killed three criminals in Superman #22 from the Supergirl Saga, killed Doomsday in Superman #75 (yes, Doomsday came back but that doesn't erase Superman's intent to kill him) and so forth. He also killed Nuclear Man in Superman IV and Luthor's henchmen in Superman Returns.

All of those things were, of course, overlooked. For some reason.

Snyder's Superman also actively engaged in combat by punching his enemies. Singer just had Superman lifting things over and over. Oh so boring. Give me the man of action any day. And twice on Sundays.

No kidding! For years there, Smallville was as good as it got in terms of Superman duking it out with people. Snyder deserves tons of love just for fixing that.

I wish the MOS and BVS Superman uniforms included the red trunks but, eh, can't have everything, I guess.

[The Dark Knight]

Removing the red trunks was part of modern overhaul that was needed as much as the new soundtrack. I'll always maintain that. Keeping them would have just cemented the vibe that Superman was a relic of the past, to be mocked or put down. I prefer the contemporary feel Snyder went with. It was time for a change. I don't miss the trunks.