James at 2008-09-06 06:20:00:

Wow, I disagree with so much that I don't know where to begin. The article, the premise, the comments.

I can't believe how short-sighted some people are that they lump ALL superheroes together. Not all superheroes are created equal.

Superman is the ARCHETYPE.

In a sense, all other superheroes are derived from him. To be cliche, comparing Superman to Batman is comparing apples to oranges.

Tom Mankiewicz, who wrote the 1978 Superman, was originally hired to develop and write the movie that eventually became Tim Burton's 1989 BATMAN.

Warner Brothers hired him wanting the same success that he had given them with Superman. However, Mankiewicz said that Batman needed to be much darker than what the studios were prepared for. However when Tim Burton came on board he brought his own writers and the whole project took on a much darker Tim Burton-esque feel.

If you think about the history of Batman, of comic-books in general, at this point in time (the mid 80s) they were seen as "light" kiddie-faire.

Frank Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS had just come out in 1986, and Alan Moore's THE WATCHMEN the year previous. It was these two comic books that redefined the superhero genre. They took the genre to darker, grittier, more real world places.

I know Hollywood, and pop culture in general, have no long term memory at all, and the short term seems to be a little over a year or so -- but it is important to understand, that comic books weren't seen as anything other than fluff at this point in time by a mainstream audience.

Frank Miller's work on Batman (which resulted in the much darker Batman we now know), primarily started it. And that started in the mid 80s.

--------------------

Okay. Now to address the issues. I'll start with the article.

"But show it to a teenager today and he or she will snicker and roll their eyes."

I disagree. We want to see Superman rescuing kittens from trees. In fact, it is what is missing from Bryan Singer's SUPERMAN RETURNS.

(And the irony is, at the end of that scene the little girl gets slapped by her mother who doesn't believe a man flew down and rescued her kitten. I recently saw this with a modern audience and they GASPED! The humor was too dark for them! Funny how times change.)

Superman IS about what is good, right, and ideal in the world. That's the appeal. That's the heart of the character. Not that Superman can take a bullet to the eyeball (Sorry, Bryan Singer).

Batman isn't about that. Batman is about the balance between vigilantism and justice. That's a dark theme.

Truth, justice, and the American way is a much more altruistic uplifting theme. That is the embodiment of Superman. His stories reflect that.

The problem is -- short-sighted people.

This is just like Warner Brothers hiring Mankiewicz to write a BATMAN that was tonally similar to his Superman. They see the success and want to reproduce it. They don't give two shits that it betrays the character.

All it will take to see a good Superman movie is someone who understands that. Who understands the nature and character of Superman.

Much like Mankiewicz knew Batman had to be a dark movie.

---------------

On to Mike Scherer's comments:

1) I disagree. Lex Luthor is a great villain. Think of how much better of a villain he has become over the years.

What happens if Lex runs for president of the U.S. (which he did in the comics)?

What if he wins?

What is Superman to do?

He upholds truth, justice, and the American way -- and now Lex Luthor IS that American way. And don't tell me that's not current. In fact, I don't think a Superman premise like that has ever been MORE current.

2) The silly romance? Sorry, but another reason SUPERMAN RETURNS failed was because that was NOT Lois Lane. That was your typical damsel in distress, oh, help me, rescue me completely one dimensional female you see in an overwhelming number of Hllywood movies.

The REAL Lois gets herself into trouble. She doesn't wait around for trouble to find her. She dives head first into it. She's good at it. She's a bulldog. If she wanted to smoke, she'd smoke god-damn-it! Superman be damned!

3) Superman vs Aliens.

This is a problem of medium.

Superman in space in comicbooks is very doable.

Superman in space in movies -- SUCKS.

Why? Because Superman is the ARCHETYPAL superhero. He protects humanity from harm. From evil. And in a movie we need to constantly be reminded why a world with Superman in it is so much better than one without.

Superman fighting aliens in space does not remind us of this, which is problematic.

It is also problematic because we know Superman wins.

It is a problem of stakes.

In space, sure it may be the baddest creature you ever saw, but in the end you know Supes will triumph.

He really needs a villain that doesn't challenge his strength because ultimately that is a short-sighted climax. He needs a villain that challenges his virtue -- which has always been Lex Luthor.

-------------------------

Anyway, I have more to say -- but that's enough for a comment.

As you can see, there is plenty of story there for someone with fresh ideas, who understands the character of Supes, to latch on to and write a good story.

No, it won't be like THE DARK KNIGHT. But ultimately, he can wrestle with just as universal of problems as Batman can. You, as the writer, just need to figure out which ones apply, and how they apply to the Man of Steel.

That's all it takes, really, for any story.

James at 2008-09-06 15:26:00:

Mike --

That's why I said people seem short-sighted on this issue of Superman.

You are confusing Superman being the archetype of superheroes as him being "flawless."

His flaw is his virtue.

His flaw is that he IS a boyscout in a time when that's not respected.

It is that he is too good. And that is easily exploitable.

In fact, in Superman II, General Zodd clearly states a huge weakness in Superman -- that he cares for "these people." And then goes on to exploit it.

That wasn't exploited in Superman III, IV, or SUPERMAN RETURNS.

As I said before, throwing the biggest, baddest villain at Supes is anti-climatic in a movie because we know he wins. He is the archetype -- he has to win. (And this is where I think most people fail to see anything beyond this point). What we don't know, is how he will win. How will a villain make Superman make a difficult decision?

That's all it takes.

Superman (1978) -- Two missles heading at two different locations -- and Supes can't save everyone.

Superman II - Supes giving up a personal life to protect the people of Earth. (Also the plot of Alan Moore's FOR THE MAN WHO HAS EVERYTHING).

It is easy to find fatal flaws in characters. Often it is their best attribute.

As a writer, you just need to see it.