Comics Creators on Superman in Live Action

[Dagenspear]

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?

Who cares about conventional? Not that I think a Superman movie should necessarily be relegated to action movie status by default. But I don't think there's much more relationshippy stuff happening in this than the Donner movies or even the later seasons of Smallville and in Lois & Clark. Even though I personally don't care that much about Superman having a romance with Lois, relationship stuff does seem to have a strong place with Superman. Though I still don't think it should take priority. Which I don't think it does in SR. More than anything the movie is about Superman feeling disconnected, out of place on earth, alone. And his relationship with Lois is an example of that. And his son is the solution to it. There's no whose-the-baby-daddy issue in the movie though. The movie just reveals it without an ounce of melodrama attached to it, if that's what you mean. There's no who broke up with who issue either.

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!

The director is wrong. There's very little real romantic drama in the movie. Though superhero movies can have that. The Spider-Man movies have a lot of that. Certainly more than SR. There's even some, to a kind of detriment, in BB and a little bit in TDK. Also in BR. I don't think that makes the term "chick flick" usable for them. Same with SR.

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.

It being a big summer tentpole doesn't really matter to it's quality. It's not a romantic oriented movie. I do see it as more of a character piece. Lack of action is an issue for me too. Though I don't think that a lacking of action makes it a chick flick. Just makes have more boring parts than it should have to me. Not enough excitement. Not that punching things is what I find exciting, there are more kinds of action than that

One borne out by the facts, luckily enough.

Not true. The facts are that a lot of, not most, unless we're applying different ideas of most in this.

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.

I'm sorry for the confusion. That was mainly in connection to an implication that I interpreted in the conversation that you were making that a liking of SR is connected to a liking of SMT/SM II. I'm very sorry for the assumption on my part, especially if that's not what you meant.

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.

That's not connected to quality.

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

You keep making statements about interest. Interest isn't important. Quality is.

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

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.

I never meant to imply that I thought that popularity didn't matter to B.O., just that popularity isn't important to the quality and vice-versa. I'm sorry for my miscommunication if I implied otherwise.

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.

If that's what Singer was trying to do, make a chick flick, then he failed, because that isn't the movie. Clark isn't a deadbeat or a stalker in it. That's a false misconception based on hyperbole knee jerk reactions to the movie. Just like the unjust reaction that Superman destroyed Metropolis in MOS.

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.

Those are all aesthetic changes. Jor-El fighting isn't important, along with him dying before krytpon's explosion. Clark being disturbed by his powers amounts to nothing. Most live action adaptions have him bullied in some way, though he wasn't bullied relentlessly. Jonathan still died, just like STM, both to make a point about not saving in some way, though through a different filter admittedly. You say it yourself, the suspicious government isn't important. It doesn't effect the story or Clark's character. There aren't magic fixes, but there are ignoring of the problems, making them pointless. It's like I said before, to me it's the same thing, the same issues, through a different lens and filtered through the ideas that the movies of the past 20 years have given, in one way or another.

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.

See, I find pointless fighting and destruction in a Superman movie boring, because it's meaningless. If I wanted to see that I'd watch a turn your brain off movie. But there's nothing fresh about angst ridden protagonists and city destruction. Most of the themes try, but they don't get enough attention in development.

Ballsy.

Why? The result is the same.

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.

I find it confusing that something having happened in comics before, makes some people think that fans should be okay with it happening in the movies. People don't like all Superman stories just because they have Superman in them and they don't think that everything Superman has done is in character or even works. But Clark didn't kill Lex's henchmen in SR and killing DD isn't the same thing as killing Zod. Also, in SM II the movie makes an issue out of Clark throwing Zod into that hole or even says that he killed him. With MOS the movie makes an issue out of it and confirms it and then ignores it. I know that's an issue I have.

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 don't agree.

[thecolorsblend]

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?

Who cares about conventional? Not that I think a Superman movie should necessarily be relegated to action movie status by default. But I don't think there's much more relationshippy stuff happening in this than the Donner movies or even the later seasons of Smallville and in Lois & Clark.

By volume? Arguable. But the difference is that the Donner canon, Smallville and even Lois & Clark had other things going for them besides romantic stuff. The Donners movies were fairly straight forward adventure films. Smallville was a coming of age story broadly and romantic stuff with Lois didn't really enter the equation until the 8th season. Lois & Clark was relationship-driven... but not exclusively so, and that element typically was incorporated into the story at hand, which could be more drama, a crime thriller, an action piece or whatever else. There was some romance in all those things but there were other elements going as well.

By comparison, Superman Returns didn't have much else to balance out all the romantic whoozeywhatsis going on. Those other iterations of Superman you mention all did.

Even though I personally don't care that much about Superman having a romance with Lois, relationship stuff does seem to have a strong place with Superman. Though I still don't think it should take priority.

So it looks like you agree with me.

Which I don't think it does in SR.

Quality vs. quantity. Superman Returns is fairly boring because not much exciting happens. And the one or two action sequences in the movie are fairly pedestrian.

The director is wrong.

Golly.

There's even some, to a kind of detriment, in BB

It never really becomes romantic until practically the last second.

and a little bit in TDK.

There are other happening in the narrative besides romance with Rachel... which ends, what, at the halfway point of the movie?

Also in BR.

As with the Superman stuff above, the romance is one of many plates that Burton has spinning in BR.

I don't think that makes the term "chick flick" usable for them.

Good because I don't think anybody is using "chick flick" in reference to them... which, in Lois & Clark's case, is quite the achievement.

Same with SR.

The director has the right to categorize his own work as he sees fit. He sees SR as a chick flick. If you disagree with that assessment, I can only conclude you believe (on some level or another) that he failed in his self-appointed task to create a chick flick.

Either way, it seems like neither of us are singing Singer's praises here.

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.

It being a big summer tentpole doesn't really matter to it's quality.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to follow this but SR was budgeted and marketed as a summer blockbuster. Irrespective of its "quality" (whatever that even means), it's far outside the style and substance of conventional summer action fare. It isn't what it was marketed to be. People wanted an action movie; what they got was a chick flick. That is fundamentally bad business.

It's not a romantic oriented movie. I do see it as more of a character piece.

The lead character's heartbreak over getting dumped by his girlfriend is a major part of his arc in that film.

Though I don't think that a lacking of action makes it a chick flick.

Nobody has said it does. Being a chick flick is what makes it a chick flick.

You keep making statements about interest. Interest isn't important. Quality is.

Mmm, interest from the audience is pretty important if the movie has any hope of success.

You keep throwing the word "quality" around and I have no idea what that means. But I don't see much "quality" in SR.

I find it confusing that something having happened in comics before, makes some people think that fans should be okay with it happening in the movies.

It's a sign post. It's hard to get upset about a character doing X, Y or Z in a movie if doing that in the comics is something that has a fairly lengthy history to it.

But Clark didn't kill Lex's henchmen in SR

So when Superman threw their hideout into outer space, you believe they survived having that giant pillar fall on top of them and then caught a ride back to Earth on a space shuttle or something?

and killing DD isn't the same thing as killing Zod.

Oh? What exactly is the difference?

Also, in SM II the movie makes an issue out of Clark throwing Zod into that hole or even says that he killed him.

Well, the alternative is Superman crushed his hand into toothpicks, tossed him down a deep misty hole in the ground and left him to starve to death. Considering he's the villain of the piece, we never see what happens to him in either the theatrical cut or Donner's alternate cut.

With MOS the movie makes an issue out of it and confirms it and then ignores it.

Seems like it became a bit of a plot point in BVS, eh?

[Dagenspear]

By volume? Arguable. But the difference is that the Donner canon, Smallville and even Lois & Clark had other things going for them besides romantic stuff. The Donners movies were fairly straight forward adventure films. Smallville was a coming of age story broadly and romantic stuff with Lois didn't really enter the equation until the 8th season. Lois & Clark was relationship-driven... but not exclusively so, and that element typically was incorporated into the story at hand, which could be more drama, a crime thriller, an action piece or whatever else. There was some romance in all those things but there were other elements going as well.

By comparison, Superman Returns didn't have much else to balance out all the romantic whoozeywhatsis going on. Those other iterations of Superman you mention all did.

I disagree. The Lex plot, the saves and Clark's feelings of lonliness are prominent. The romance ties into that, but it's not imbalanced by it. I actually feel at the end that the movie closes out the romance at the end.

So it looks like you agree with me.

Quality vs. quantity. Superman Returns is fairly boring because not much exciting happens. And the one or two action sequences in the movie are fairly pedestrian.

Not much exciting happening doesn't mean that romance is a priority. I think Clark's feelings of lonliness are the priority.

Golly. It never really becomes romantic until practically the last second. There are other happening in the narrative besides romance with Rachel... which ends, what, at the halfway point of the movie? As with the Superman stuff above, the romance is one of many plates that Burton has spinning in BR.

Good because I don't think anybody is using "chick flick" in reference to them... which, in Lois & Clark's case, is quite the achievement.

There are a few instances before that of a  little too typical romancey elements to me in BB and kinda in TDK.

The director has the right to categorize his own work as he sees fit. He sees SR as a chick flick. If you disagree with that assessment, I can only conclude you believe (on some level or another) that he failed in his self-appointed task to create a chick flick.

Either way, it seems like neither of us are singing Singer's praises here.

I said that I think he failed to do that.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to follow this but SR was budgeted and marketed as a summer blockbuster. Irrespective of its "quality" (whatever that even means), it's far outside the style and substance of conventional summer action fare. It isn't what it was marketed to be. People wanted an action movie; what they got was a chick flick. That is fundamentally bad business.

It isn't a chick flick. But it not being a summer blockbuster or action fare doesn't make it good or bad, just like something being those things doesn't do that.

The lead character's heartbreak over getting dumped by his girlfriend is a major part of his arc in that film.

His disconnection from humanity and feelings of lonliness in the world is the main character arc. The romance and Lois' rejection connects to that, but it's not the priority.

Nobody has said it does. Being a chick flick is what makes it a chick flick.

It isn't that.

Mmm, interest from the audience is pretty important if the movie has any hope of success.

You keep throwing the word "quality" around and I have no idea what that means. But I don't see much "quality" in SR.

That's your prerogative. Success only matters to people who want to make money, not to those who want to see a well made product.

It's a sign post. It's hard to get upset about a character doing X, Y or Z in a movie if doing that in the comics is something that has a fairly lengthy history to it.

Not really. People don't like or even accept many things from comics or view them as in character.

So when Superman threw their hideout into outer space, you believe they survived having that giant pillar fall on top of them and then caught a ride back to Earth on a space shuttle or something?

I think that Superman wasn't trying to kill them and while is culpable for their deaths has no idea they died and I don't think is actively responsible for it.

Oh? What exactly is the difference?

I'm not arguing against killing someone whose trying kill children as a last resort here. But Zod has feelings and a personality. DD is a mindless monster with none of that.

Well, the alternative is Superman crushed his hand into toothpicks, tossed him down a deep misty hole in the ground and left him to starve to death. Considering he's the villain of the piece, we never see what happens to him in either the theatrical cut or Donner's alternate cut.

I didn't say he didn't kill him. I'm saying that the audience weren't given the vicious in your face treatment of him dying as MOS gave. I can say that a lot of people probably never gave it much thought, because the movie didn't make it something that should be dealt with. Which is a different problem, I agree.

Seems like it became a bit of a plot point in BVS, eh?

BvS making it matter doesn't justify it not mattering in MOS. It's that movie's problem. But that isn't what I meant. The movie presented it as this big awful thing that SM had to do and then sweeps it under the rug. Have a very great day you and everyone!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Laughing Fish]

Jerry Ordway shared this illustration that he sent personally to Christopher Reeve when the late actor suffered that tragic horse riding accident back in 1995:

To Christopher Reeve,

My inspiration to draw Superman comics!
Get better soon.

Jerry Ordway.

http://comicbook.com/2016/03/05/legendary-superman-artist-jerry-ordway-shares-the-get-well-card-/

[The Laughing Fish]

Joe Quesada on Man of Steel while speaking to Kevin Smith's podcast:

In an appearance on Kevin Smith's Fat Man on Batman podcast, Marvel Entertainment's Chief Creative Officer Joe Quesada weighed in with his thoughts on the competition's Man Of Steel, which rebooted the Superman franchise.

When talking about how Captain America dealt with his adversary in Captain America: The Winter Soldier in comparison to Superman dealing with Zod in Man of Steel, Quesada joked, "He could have broken Bucky's neck. I'm sorry. I had to get it in there."

Quesada also added that comparison was something that someone had pointed out to him in an online article.

"As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much," said Quesada. "I wanted to love it so much, and I didn't love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me."

"He wanted to save his race, and Superman didn't let him," explained Quesada.

Quesada added, "Zod, in this particular incarnation, struck me as not necessarily an evil man, but a man of...he had a particular...he had his orders, he had a mission. He was a zealot of sorts, but he was a zealot...again, correct me if I'm wrong... but he didn't say, 'I want to rebuild Krypton, and then come back and destroy this little planet. All I want is to rebuild this planet. And the only reason I'm blowing everything to bits here is because you've got what I want, and you're not giving it to me. So please, give me my people, and I'll leave."

When Kevin Smith interjected that Zod forced Superman to make a choice that it was either going to be Krypton or Earth, Quesada replied, "When Superman said Krypton had its chance, I was like, 'Will you just f***ing kill him Zod?'"

Quesada felt that Superman was abandoning his own race in the film, and there could have been a solution where Superman could have given Zod what he wanted, so Zod could have rebuilt Krypton elsewhere. However, Smith countered that even if Superman had given Zod some of his blood that Zod would have eventually come back and wiped out Earth.

Quesada replied, "You probably could have written a way around it. You could have had a better solution if you had written a better problem. So I see things like that, and I'm like, 'Aww, man.' It was one of some things in the movie, that I just ended up feeling disappointed in it."

Quesada pointed out that he didn't get that feeling with the Batman movies and that he loved the Batman movies.

"I was in the mood to watch that Superman movie, and afterwards I was just angry," said Quesada.

http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/04/27/marvels-joe-quesada-disappointed-in-man-of-steel-says-it-made-zod-the-hero/



Out of all the negative MOS comments from people in the comics industry, Quesada's feedback has got to be the most moronic and backwards out of all of them.

One might suggest he has a heavy bias because he works for Marvel, but that still doesn't explain where he came up with this stupidity. "Zod was a hero"? WTF has he been smoking?! No sh*t Superman wouldn't let Zod save his race, he was trying to commit global genocide in order to do it! Did the miss the part involving the World Engine destroying Metropolis? Of course the home grown Superman would rather choose Earth. How can he compare The Winter Solider favourably when the two films have nothing in common? Bucky was a brainwashed assassin who still had goodness within him, whereas Zod wanted to exterminate the entire globe, while trying to revive Krypton at its expense, and after the chance to do so was taken from him. They're nothing alike FFS!

As for the Batman movies comment? I question the wisdom of this guy - and anyone else for that matter - if MOS left him angry because Superman killed genocidal maniac, but he was okay watching a Batman where the "hero" put the entire town in harm's way trying to prove to the Joker that he's "incorruptible"...only to kill another villain in the last five minutes.

Shockingly ignorant stuff.

[thecolorsblend]

"As a comic book fan, I wanted to love that movie so much," said Quesada. "I wanted to love it so much, and I didn't love it so much. Again, there are little things here and there that you could pick at and things like that, but I just think at the end of the day, Zod was the hero of the movie to me."

"He wanted to save his race, and Superman didn't let him," explained Quesada.

Quesada added, "Zod, in this particular incarnation, struck me as not necessarily an evil man, but a man of...he had a particular...he had his orders, he had a mission. He was a zealot of sorts, but he was a zealot...again, correct me if I'm wrong... but he didn't say, 'I want to rebuild Krypton, and then come back and destroy this little planet. All I want is to rebuild this planet. And the only reason I'm blowing everything to bits here is because you've got what I want, and you're not giving it to me. So please, give me my people, and I'll leave."

Um, Zod never presented that choice to Superman. The fact of the matter is that Zod had access to technology that could've reshaped any planet in the universe to his likings. He could've rebuilt Krypton anywhere. He chose Earth even though it meant committing genocide. Why? Because he's a villain.

He had Superman helpless and in his custody for several hours. He could've reclaimed the codex then if he'd wanted to. But he didn't.

As I said above, he also never gave Superman a choice to hand over the codex in exchange for Zod's own withdrawal. What Zod did do is promise planet-wide destruction if Superman didn't surrender to him. Why? Because he's a villain.

How anybody can call Zod the hero of MOS is beyond me.

[The Dark Knight]

It is a baffling stance, that's for sure. This is a world where heroes are labelled toxic and divisive and the villains are thought of as idealistic angels. As colors says, Zod wanted to recreate Krypton...by killing every last human on Earth. That's all I really have to type. Superman wanted to coexist with humanity. Zod didn't.

As for Zod not killing Superman on the ship, that also makes logical sense. In Zod's mind, Superman is depowered and no longer a threat. He didn't count on his powers returning. I'm positive the deal was this: keep Superman as our prisoner, destroy the humans, let him watch and THEN kill him. Zod had it out for the El family. And there's a thing with killing - you can only do it once. So Zod wanted to do it right. Much like the Joker with Batman.

[The Laughing Fish]

He had Superman helpless and in his custody for several hours. He could've reclaimed the codex then if he'd wanted to. But he didn't.

Zod didn't even know the codex was stored in Superman's DNA until he was notified by one of his scientists much later. Nonetheless, it doesn't change anything you've said.

[The Laughing Fish]

Gail Simone tweets her opinion on the Clark/Lois romance in live action:

Here is a reason so many Superman movies misfire. Only the first two Donner films dealt with the obvious: that Superman is a romance story. They are, not coincidentally, the two films that presented a Superman as sexy, beyond just attractive. The panties discussion in Superman 1 is vastly hotter than all the recent Superman movies combined.

I think it's also why Smallville and Lois and Clark succeeded, they took advantage of Superman's romantic and sex appeal. Superman should leave theater seats darn near unusable. Instead, they keep showing him as tortured and morose. I think audiences have a hard time loving a ridiculously handsome flying guy with a hot girlfriend who feels sorry for himself.

Unlike almost all other iconic superheroes, the romance angle is built into Superman's story DNA. Like Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot. I have enjoyed the recent Superman movies to varying degrees...but Lois and Clark should be EPIC. Should melt underwear worldwide.

When I was writing Action Comics, writers were complaining that it was hard to write Lois and Clark as married. Pish. Superman belongs, not to the dark crimebuster genre, he belongs to the romantic hero category, like Zorro.

Anyway, that is my rant for the day. When I have more time, I have some theories about Lois/Clark to annoy everyone with. But the key is, Superman should set  pants on fire, Lois/Clark should burn down the pants factory.

Source: https://twitter.com/GailSimone/status/858821368317493248

Frankly, I find this to be shallow. Yeah, the romance with Lois is important of course, but there's much more to Superman than that. Seriously, you mean to tell me you prefer some lovey-dovey action than the idea of Superman going through a character arc where he overcomes doubt and obstacles with selflessness and bravery? You think, that in itself regardless of how it's realised on screen, is nothing more than "tortured and morose"?

Grow up.

[The Dark Knight]

Indeed. It's a load of crap. In BvS, there's a dark cloud hanging over the character's heads, but we know they both deeply care about one another. The romance is still there with Cavill and Adams. So much so, I wouldn't be surprised if the two characters get married at some point.

Lois investigated Clark and became interested in Superman.
They embraced several times, and Lois was there to console Clark after he killed Zod.
By the time of BvS, Clark moved into Lois' apartment.
Clark and Lois got down and dirty in the tub.
Superman rescued Lois several times in both films.
Lois worked hard to clear Superman's name.
Clark told Lois "you are my world" moments before he died.
Ma Kent told Lois that Clark was going to propose.

Superman can walk down the street and chew gum at the same time. Meaning romance can be present in a live action film, as well as covering themes such as overcoming obstacles, being selfless and being brave. It's like the myth Cavill's Superman doesn't smile. He does, and during appropriate situations.