Advice From a Fanboy: Superman Edition

[IcepickEvans]

Darkseid. Nigh apocalypse. World of Cardboard Speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl_5UwS57X8

I know the dude is perfect and all, but you have to give him a little sympathy. His very existence is a threat to the world he calls home, and to his family and friends. His day to day activities, no matter what they happen to be, takes great restraint on his part. His strength and speed doesn't just lie dormant until he decides he needs it. He has to hold himself back. Give him a villain or situation where he can let loose. Then give him a reason get vengeful (because after all, he may be super, but he's still a man).

Superman isn't a deep character. In fact, he's pretty one note. But this just means you don't have to bog the film down in useless melodrama, because it doesn't work with Supes, and everyone already knows this. This is a good opportunity to just let the special effects fly and have him do amazing things. Then when he meets his match, the audience will be completely glued to the screen.

>.> My two cents. Probably what my opinion is actually worth. ^o^

 

[MovieBob]

I've never really understood the criticism of Superman being too-powerful to be engaging, mostly because he's fictional. It's not like there's some kind of official "everybody knows" strength-chart telling us EXACTLY what he can do so we always know whether or not a given situation is within his capability.

Thusly, it's a pretty simple fix: Just don't make him TOO strong in the movie, comic or TV episode in question. DC Comics did this in the 80s, when "too damn powerful" actually HAD become a storytelling issue for them after so many decades. They "powered him down" editorially, essentially telling writers that stuff like shoving planets out of orbit was no longer on the "can do" list and encouraging artists to depict him exerting energy when doing especially superhuman tasks. "Stronger than any living man" instead of "stronger than anything ever," basically.

And even failing that, there's still the matter of simple storytelling to contend with: Technically, there shouldn't be any suspense in the "Harry Potter" series either, because almost everyone is a wizard who can conjure damn near anything they need. Solution? Bad guys with better wand-fu and scenarios where magic ain't gonna cut it. Luthor's scheme in the first Christopher Reeve film actually showed a near-perfect example of this: stage TWO evil acts, each which can ONLY be thwarted by Superman... but not at the same time. What was especially great about that was how well it also played into reaffirming the character - Superman is such an earnest do-gooder that a choice where no matter what SOMEONE is doomed actually would be nearly-impossible for him to manage.

 

[Vortigar]

You know, given what I've said about hating Superman in the thread on the Buried review, if they make good on that last paragraph and have him fly through the core of the moon just to get to the villain's dark-side-of-the-moon-fortress faster or some such, I might actually go see this movie.

By my lonesome.

Because nobody I know cares about Supes.

Utterly idiotic. Nobody cares about Smallville? I certainly don't, but a tv show that makes just marginal bussiness does not stay on the air for close to 10 years without a modicum of success.

The proper response to Smallville is to just treat it as an alternate universe and ignore it. Bob got that one right. Whether or not the show is succesful or not should be beside the point, yeah, so Bob is a bit overzealous here and there, what else is new? (Sorry Bob.)

I've never really understood the criticism of Superman being too-powerful to be engaging, mostly because he's fictional. It's not like there's some kind of official "everybody knows" strength-chart telling us EXACTLY what he can do so we always know whether or not a given situation is within his capability.

Sure there's no exact measure but he's done so much over the years that its become completely ridiculous. In Harry Potter they realized the problem and killed Dumbledore just because of this exact reason. He's too powerful and kills the suspense.

Of course you know the good guys are going to win, but Supes makes it too obvious, he can solve any problem in a million ways once he actually wakes up and gets on with it. He practically never uses his power in an interesting way, and when he does it looks rather pointless or overly gratuitous, like the time reversal madness, if he can do that he should be able to solve every problem that way and be done with it.

It's like if Harry Potter were the villain and the books were about the adventures of Voldemort. Sure, Voldy doesn't know how Harry survived way back when but if it ever comes to a straight up confrontation he's going to beat him hands down and any other outcome would come across like cheating.

You make your villain more powerful than your hero to allow for surprise and growth. It's an interesting situation to see it turned upside down with Superman but its been proven time and again writers can't seem to be able to handle it properly. That's the most important point. Because of the inverted power-relationship between hero and villain people get weirded out, not only the audience, but also the writers who are used to handle it the other way around.

The only way anyone can beat Superman is by cheating in some way, like the two evil acts at the same time dilemma. Or make a play on his ethical beliefs, with randomized innocent suicide bombers or something. The problem with Superman is that in the end the only way you can beat him is by making his powers irrelevant, in which case you can start to wonder why he has these powers to begin with.

I'd even go so far as those problems Supes can't deal with are of such a magnitude that the army would probably have been involved ages ago. Making it a case of why is Supes even doing this at all? This scenario would've been better off on 24 or House or Numbers or whatever as Superman is not made to deal with this type of problem, like milking a cow with a hammer.

 

[Crispee]

I think that to say that "Nobody watches Smallville." is a bit generalizing, I personally love it and have a few friends who've watched it for years too. But neeeever mind that.

 

[Nomanslander]

I think it's safe to say that MovieBob has some of the worst ideas ever. I like his reviews, but Jesus Christ. I do not want to see silliness, and no one else does either. Superman lifting a continent is the type of shit that turns people off to him.

I don't think Moviebob meant silliness literally, the correct word or words would be awe inspiring. Superman has always been about being the man capable of doing feats that are suppose to be unimaginable, being faster than a bullet leaping tall buildings in a single bound, putting the Super in man, and if you take that away he will cease being Superman.

Now granted there is a boundary that shouldn't be crossed, for instance flying so fast to turn the earth the other direction just to turn back time. Superman has been known to nuke the fridge a whole bunch of times but have you noticed he's the only character that's been able to get away with it.

Moviebob is totally right in his last paragraph, they need to go nuts, but as long as what he's doing upholds the laws of physics and the space time continuum, I don't think there would be a problem.


Oh and...


Smallville sucks!!

 

[wulfy42]

What is with all the smallville hate?

Seriously it's better then Louis and Clark ever was by far....and in my opinion that was better then the previous Superman TV shows (although those were still quite good in their time).

Yeah, so it's a bit Dawson's Creak, but it was also about a Teen aged Clark growing up....it made sense. And in my opinion Micheal Rosembloom (not sure how to spell his last name) was freaking awesome. It was a sad day when he left the show especially since it picked up in so many ways at that point (stopped having all the enemies be meteor freaks and started incorporating the justice league etc)

I've watched the show for what 10 years now? I watched Louis and Clark before that as well (never missed an episode of either show). I'm a superman fan and I just can't see why everyone is so down on smallville. Yes it's not perfect, but it's kept me entertained for years.

The original Law and Order had the record as the show that I have watched consistently the longest...but it's gone now. Smallville has taken it's place as the longest show I watch every week and never miss an episode. This is the last season it will be on though and then almost everything I watch consistently will be fairly new (in the last 5 years or so), which I find very sad.

I am going to miss Smallville when it is gone and I highly doubt that Wonder Woman is going to do a good job taking it's place. Maybe I'll get lucky and the girl who plays Wonder Woman will at least be hot. I am very disappointed in "No ordinary Family" especially since the girl from Angel and more recently Dexter is a main character. Talk about a soap oprah, family show with a dash of super hero in it.

Smallville may have gone to Dawson's creek a few times (or many times early on) but at least it had some cool villains and story lines (at least I thought so) over the years. There are very few television shows that I have watched as many episodes of as Smallville and there were quite a few of them that I really enjoyed.

 

[T-004]

You can't alienate the Smallville fanbase. Yes, they watch Smallville. However, because of them watching Smallville they will be more likely to see the Superman movie. More people seeing the movie means more chances that more superhero movies will come into play. They have Batman, Green Lantern, Superman is coming out, Wonder Woman TV show. Now to get Green Arrow.

The point isn't to alienate them, the point is to simply not care about what transpires on Smallville, a show that barely anyone watches, which is thus entirely irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of folks likely to go watch a new Superman movie. It's Dawson's Creek with superheroes - the dedicated fans of that show are the folks who would be happy just watching Dawson's Creek.

Those people are not really the audience for a new Superman movie, and designing the film to appeal to them is going to alienate all the people who don't watch Smallville now (which is almost everyone, because very few people actually watch Smallville). Ergo, do what you like, and if the Smallville viewership doesn't like the results than that's their tough luck.

Woah! I absolutley hated Dawsons Creek! I do however like Smallville. It started out pretty slow and did have a bit too much tween drama but over the past 5 seasons or so has grown up quite a bit. Yeah, there is still a bit of the old soapy crap but by and large the mythology has come to the fore and the show is all the better for it.

I was never a big Supes fan but watching Smallville got me interested in reading more of the books than the few I own.

Frankly I think that a link to Smallvlle wouldn't be a bad thing, but as the show does not follow the mythology too strictly it might be a wiser idea to just look at the books from the past decade or so and weave a plot from them.

Then again, a lot of the people who will go to see this movie wont be comic readers so WB would probably get better gross if they used the film to cap Smallville, in a gigantic, hugely destructive way of course >

 

[ThePants]

I find the "don't listen to the fans" part a bit ironic, but you and I both know that they should listen to you on this stuff. I really hope they at least read the part about going all out for Superman, FREAKIN. SUPERMAN. Grabbing a plane isn't ANYTHING compared to lifting the Chrysler Building! As somebody in high school who wants to make movies someday, I'd like to say that your advice is worth taking.

 

[Callate]

I think if the forum posts can be considered a reasonable sample, you might be off the mark in your assessment of Smallville, Bob. Which is not to say you aren't right that it ought to have no place in the making of the movie.

Regarding spectacle, I think it's worth remembering that both 2012 and Independence Day were bad movies. Okay, yes, the latter was a fairly successful bad movie. But there was nothing in it that wasn't straight out of Screenwriting 101, not a single memorable character, not a single moment that bore thinking about for fifteen seconds after the credits. From the token gay character dying in a fireball to the President of the United States strapping into a jetfighter, there was nothing there that wasn't aimed at getting a brain-dead visceral response (never mind the queasiness later.) For that matter, Superman Returns didn't exactly skimp on spectacle. I agree that this shouldn't be downplayed into Dark Knight-style quasi-realism, but I'd strongly advise against making a CGriffic short-attention-span-fest, either. We've had plenty of those... And frankly, even of the good superhero movies of late have been at their weakest in the scenes when they gave in to the impulse to go that route.

Finally, I think there's one utterly crucial element that goes unmentioned in your piece: Superman is likable. The reason a site like Superdickery is so funny in part is because it so goes against our expectations. If Batman is the fans' fantasy that, pushed to the wall, they too could be the Baddest Motherf@$%#er on Earth (to borrow a phrase from Neal Stephenson), Superman is the fantasy that, given the powers of a demigod, we wouldn't change- we'd still be basically decent people who would seek to use those powers for good. Part of Superman Returns's fail was that we never really got any picture of the man behind the suit- we were to busy watching him do epic things. You don't have to go overboard, you shouldn't turn Superman into some sort of moody angst-fest by any means, but if Singer's X-Men movies showed us one thing, it's that handled properly you can get a real sense of a character if you're willing to take five minutes from things going boom. Just five minutes. Seriously.

 

[Guilen-]

Whereas I don't personally care about Smallville, it's not fair to say -nobody- cares about it. The people who love that show like it for a reason that, well, eludes me, but doesn't surprise me, and quite frankly adds a wonderful dimension to the mythos of Superman. Do you remember Lois and Clark? It's in a very similar vein! I would say its success was responsible for Smallville, and if you don't count its existence, you're not including one of the most amazing things about Superman. Superman, if you think about it, does what no other superhero has been able to do: he has managed to appeal both to the geekdom and to the sweetheart femme audience out there; the Grey's Anatomy crowd, for example, has a show that gives them some credence to not look down on the comic book world. My sister, for example, a 30 year old novelist, absolutely -loves- Lois and Clark AND Smallville, and she's no dumby. Like I said, I don't care for it myself, but it should say something to his credit that Superman can have the die-hard following of somebody like Quentin Tarantino AND have what is almost the equivalent of chibi-otaku-charm in North America. He unifies in unheard of capacities. Dude, he's Superman. Good article, though.

 

[ultrachicken]

I thought superman wasn't going to fly in this movie?

 

[Dectilon]

"That way leads to squeezing the Electra storyline into the first Daredevil movie. That way leads to thinking you can build a good Spider-Man movie around Venom."

To be fair, both of those were horribly implemented. I have to say I would've preferred Daredevil to be just his origin story since it's basically the best shot Marvel had at a 4-star movie, but the Elektra story had potential too. Bad casting, a worse script and no ambition whatsoever killed it dead though.

Spider-man 3 is just a mess altogether. Venom could certainly work in a movie. Any villain could. It's just a matter of doing solid work.

I'm a bit worried about Snyder, because he doesn't seem to notice when a line is too awkward to keep. Watchmen was, as many will say, about as faithful to the source material as a movie would allow. Most of the dialog is directly from the book, and unfortunately that doesn't work very well. Tons of lines end up sounding weird and deliberate, as if the actors are reading their lines in a language they don't actually understand. Hopefully he won't make the same mistake here.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Having Watchmen as a tagline makes this the highest pedigree a superhero movie can get?

Watchmen was such a "meh" film! It was honestly a really forgettable movie, why can't you let it go Bob!?

OT: I just hope Zack Snyder doesn't mess it up with too much slow mo. I kinda agree with Bob on the not listening to fans completely thing.

 

[Styphax]

I've never really understood the criticism of Superman being too-powerful to be engaging, mostly because he's fictional. It's not like there's some kind of official "everybody knows" strength-chart telling us EXACTLY what he can do so we always know whether or not a given situation is within his capability.

Thusly, it's a pretty simple fix: Just don't make him TOO strong in the movie, comic or TV episode in question. DC Comics did this in the 80s, when "too damn powerful" actually HAD become a storytelling issue for them after so many decades. They "powered him down" editorially, essentially telling writers that stuff like shoving planets out of orbit was no longer on the "can do" list and encouraging artists to depict him exerting energy when doing especially superhuman tasks. "Stronger than any living man" instead of "stronger than anything ever," basically.

And even failing that, there's still the matter of simple storytelling to contend with: Technically, there shouldn't be any suspense in the "Harry Potter" series either, because almost everyone is a wizard who can conjure damn near anything they need. Solution? Bad guys with better wand-fu and scenarios where magic ain't gonna cut it. Luthor's scheme in the first Christopher Reeve film actually showed a near-perfect example of this: stage TWO evil acts, each which can ONLY be thwarted by Superman... but not at the same time. What was especially great about that was how well it also played into reaffirming the character - Superman is such an earnest do-gooder that a choice where no matter what SOMEONE is doomed actually would be nearly-impossible for him to manage.

It's worth noting that DC Entertainment has given the comics division of their company extensive oversight on what happens with the movies. Geoff Johns, (Who is arguably the current architect of the DCU outside of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, AND was Richard Donner's Assistant) is in charge of overseeing DC properties outside of comics. Beyond that Warner Bros actually hired Geoff Johns, Marv Wolfman, and Grant Morrison as consultants for their comics propertied, meaning most likely that all of them will have a say.

Also, it wouldn't be a Superman movie post if I didn't tout the same thing I always do whenever these come up. If you want a successful Superman movie, there is a 12 issue Miniseries called All Star Superman. There you go. Just lift it off the page (Snyder could totally do it too, until the end Watchmen almost seemed Panel for Panel)

 

[theultimateend]

Advice From a Fanboy: Superman Edition

Do Not Listen To Fans

-

The following sentence is false.

The previous sentence is true.

(hope you have paradox-absorbing crumple zones)

Fans != Fanboys || Fangirls

Just wanted to note there isn't a paradox in his point.

That's like saying "I really like children." "Oh? You a pedophile then?"

There are fans of things, then there are fanboys or fangirls, the kind of people who invent words like "narutard" or "xbot". Virile trash generally that exist only because their parents had an accident.

Not you guys though, you are all cool of course. I'm just talking about "those people".

 

[DTWolfwood]

Yes Superman needs to do something out of this world. Like when he made the world spin backwards to roll back time! (We all know it doesn't work that way, but hell everyone excepted it cause he is f@#$ing SUPERMAN)

 

[Xander_VJ]

Well, as some people have already pointed out, the "Nobody cares about Smallville" misses the mark.

Sorry Bob, but I'm afraid that you and the rest of "Smallville" haters are being in denial on this. You seem to hate the show so much that you utterly refuse to accept that the series has gotten a decent amount of success.

Now, before you ignore my statement thinking that I'm just some "Smallville" fan boy, think again. I don't specially like it. I just think it's OK, though severely unbalanced. I watched the first 5 seasons and then lost interest on it. But that doesn't mean that I forgot it ever existed. Quite the contrary.

That's because I see that, while it does tons of things wrong, the things that does right play the right cords. And that's "Smallville"'s true source of success.

Let me explain a little, if you will.

As some have already pointed out, Superman is outdated as a super hero. He is anachronistic in way too many aspects.

What "Smallville" gets right is that it modernizes the hero into the 21st century. Or at least its origins. We can argue if we like how it is modernized, but that's a different topic.

This is obviously best portrayed during the first 3 or 4 seasons. Clark learns his powers one at a time, he starts his story with Lex Luthor, he learns how to be a hero, his moral code is being developed and we see him having his teenage problems. All in a 21st century setting.

Speaking of the "teenage problems" thing, I can imagine that one of the reasons Bob hate it so much is the "Dawson's Creek" factor. He has stated in his videos that he totally hates awkward teenage romance. However we're talking about a teenage Clark during the early 2000s. Even if it was over the top, angsty, immature romance in this context not only made sense, but was also kinda necessary in this modernization. Of course the execution was poor in many ways (the dragging of Clark and Lana's story, the often cheese dialogue, etc...), but the basic idea was good, whether we like it or not.

And besides, another thing that the series got right was the "no tights" part. Having Clark to use his powers with no costume whatsoever forced him to make sure that absolutely NO ONE could ever see him saving the day. Not even a glance. That gave Superman a new and refreshing flavor which felt very modern. Of course it stopped having sense eventually and right now it is downright stupid, but during the first seasons was totally a right thing to do.

The point of all this babbling is that "Smallville" gave very good ideas for a necessary Superman modernization, even if the execution of those good ideas often were not well handed and the series completely lost its track like 5 seasons in.


Maybe what Nolan and co. should do is just to take the good basic concepts "Smallville" had, and forget the rest. I think forgetting those ideas out of despise to the show would be unwise.

 

[medv4380]

MB, No one wants a pre-Crisis Superman, and he's way to hard to write for in that form. You want some insain epic battle that would make absolutely no sense then go back watch the 50's shows and watch him bounce bullets and duck when they throw their gun at him. If you want to watch him stop armies go watch that horrible The Quest for Peace. The first movie was good and the second movie was good but they were good because they introduced and explored a new villain with each one. Lex is way over used and they really only need to use any one of his villans other than Zod or Lex. Heck, use toyman then introduce dooms day for a sequel then do the real superman returns/reborn and that would make for a great set. But no, they arn't going to do that they are going to try to make it like any other hollywood film. Your hate for Smallville is unwarranted since if you were going to make a point about bad superman shows you only had to go back to "The Adventures of Superboy" It was in your lifetime and you should be able to remember it as being just that BAD Cheezy unwatchable.

 

[i7omahawki]

"He's a Neitzschean paradigm!"?

Nietzschean paradigm?

Far from it, Superman is Nietzschean merely in name. If any superhero exemplified the morality which Nietzsche spends pretty much all of his work critisizing, it is Superman.


In fact, a Nietzschean superhero doesn't even make any sense.

 

[Ericb]

They should make Clark Kent going after the big crooks in power all over the world, be they corporate or political. But having trouble with the possibility of explaining how exactly he manages to uncover so many dirts from their shoes.

An actual conflict worthy of Superman could only happen by exploring the limits imposed by the near limitlessness of his abilities.