Support me on Patreon: / henryboseley By popular demand here is my video essay on how Superman is hard to write for, hope you enjoy :) Please Like and Subscribe for more Video Essays.
5:06 The answer seems glaringly simple then: Write Clark Kent as a character and Superman as the unwavering paragon of Clark Kent's virtues. Make his personal life interesting and his superhero life uplifting and inspiring. That is still difficult, but not unachievable.
Even if what you said is true, that still means he has no weakness, not even a mental one, if you wanna fix the issue plaguing superman, make his powers a curse rather than just powers, invincible from the invincible series does this perfectly powers are a pain in the ass to control and if not used carefully can be dangerous, with superman he either has perfect control over his powers or the version we see of him already solved the "problem" I mentioned
@@dr.wolfenwho4310 I actually disagree with you because Superman isn't invisible, there is the clear weakness to kryptonite which everyone uses but also magic and anyone with super strength can damage him pretty well. It's just most writers don't write that factor in. Clark Kent should be the focus of all Superman movies. More so if Clark is focused on his friends are too and they can be easily used to motivate Clark to do more. But him seeing that his powers are something he needs to control is a big part of teen Clark.
Is it though? I always say that Superman is the backbone of so man character inspo’s because his concept is just “what if really strong guy, was just a guy” Aka what people love about saitama, goku and obviously Spider-Man, are the things people secretly love about dupes (when he’s not written like a knob) There’s an insane amount of easy heart and comedy you can wring from just the concept of a guy like Superman still having to go to the dmv💀 The fact that no one can see the obvious humor that comes out of a guy like Superman getting stomach cramps and having to take his shirt off just endure the bomb of a shit he’s about drop in a toilet is beyond me. Even simple things like catching a fly, must be insanely easy and annoying for a guy like him. When living alone, catching and releasing bugs in his house with his speed and power is probably the easiest thing in the world. So in public confined spaces, he obviously can’t just dispose of one the same way Superman would. Mild mannered Clark Kent can’t become too known for catching bugs since his whole thing is standing out less. So he either has to A. Just leave it be and let someone else catch it Or B. Find a way to catch himself But for a guy probably not used to lingering, buzzing, bugs with sensitive hearing, sitting around and willingly letting a fly buzz around and do its thing could drive him mad as far as minor inconveniences go. It’s a simple concept that: -gets to the core of his character -explains a bit of how Superman actually works and lives and uses his powers daily -is funny -and is so simple that it can be interpreted from anything between being relatable to people who hate bugs to people with sensory issues and trouble focusing The feeling of feeling powerless to stop something no matter what you do can be funny or tragic and its honestly a problem that everyone can relate to
Staying faithful to the source material and humanizing Superman shouldn't be two seperate things. What I've always thought the writers should do, is focus more on how his life as Superman affects his life as Clark Kent. Both positively and negatively. Just like what Raimi did with Peter Parker in Spider-Man 2. Finding that balance between being Superman and Clark Kent should be difficult for him. At least in his early years as Superman. Why? Because of the *guilt* of not being able to save everyone. To hear people constantly cry for help, all across the world, and not being able to do anything, because he's stuck at the Daily Planet, or he's on a date with Lois, should all feed into his guilt. Is it even possible to have a normal relationship with Lois and still be Superman? Snyder brought up that issue in BvS but never actually explored it. The writers should focus more on these types of struggles. Instead of focusing on Jesus imagery, show us how difficult it is to live a normal life and be the protector of Earth, all at the same time. His character arc should be about learning to live with that guilt. Just like Cap said in Civil War (the Superman of the MCU, in many ways) "This job...we try to save as many people as we can. Sometimes that doesn't mean everybody. But if we can't learn to live with that, then maybe next time nobody gets saved" If Clark doesn't learn to live with the guilt, he might end up giving up. The weight of the world might be too much for his shoulders to bear. You see, Superman may be invulnerable physically, but mentally and emotionally, he's as vulnerable as any human. That's where Lois should come in. She could be the one that helps him cope with the guilt. She could give him another purpose in life. The inner struggles and the guilt would be faithful to his character (because he cares so much) and they would also humanize him, at the same time.
I liked how they made Superman kill in Man of Steel. Sometimes you end up with really boring and predictable scripts if you try to stick to the "perfect" man all the time. Cmon, they made a mediocre movie with all the possibilities open, what would they do by sticking only to the Superman's "normal life" issues? I get your point, and I think that would be interesting, but only as a secondary nucleus. Not for focusing all the attention to.
Elmin Legend, exactly! If you need to give Superman a real conflict, give him something he can't fight his way out of: disease. Someone important to him is dying and he can't do anything to save them. That would be a real emotional blow to him. I don't care how different they tried to make him in Man of Steel, he would have saved Pa Kent from that tornado, exposure or not.
superman dosent have to be complex to be interesting most people arent when you get down to it we just need a character we can empathize with. and if these suggested struggles sound like they mirror batmans well i think that would have worked well for the narrative in batman vs superman when they needed a reason to see eye to eye instead using the fact that their mothers have the same name as their bases for common ground
Elmin Legend I see where you're coming from but there is one flaw in your argument. Peter Parker is human. He can and has failed. He'll lean more towards being spiderman and then suffer the consequences in his personal life. He'll try to put his own life first and fail as spiderman. It's when his two lives reach equilibrium that his life is finally balanced and the story has a happy ending. Superman is not human. He barely ever fails and in the odd chance that he does, he can just fly around the world so fast that it rewinds time. In fact, he can fly so fast that can solve any problem in his social life in less than a millisecond and no one would notice because it went by so fast. The only conflicts that he would ever have trouble with is if a villian is more powerful than him. And even then, he has a team of super heroes known as the justice League to help him. So basically, if he "stayed close to the source material" then his entire life would be a happy ending. This is why writing his character is so difficult.
For a compelling version of Superman that doesn't compromise who he is, I highly recommend the animated movie, Superman vs. The Elite. It truly highlights exactly WHY Superman has to be good all the time, and the burden his role puts on his shoulders, and also showcases the fact that he almost always holds back his punches against his foes because he's thinking about the innocents surrounding them (which is where the DCEU fails with his character; the real Superman would NEVER smash through populated buildings, or if he did, he'd use his super strength/speed to save everyone). The movie also goes into the "no killing" code, and WHY Superman doesn't kill: because he can EASILY kill literally ANYONE. His burden is that of a super-powered man who HAS to be good 100% of the time, or else the results would be catastrophic, and he proves it in the end without actually hurting anyone. It's a fantastic movie, and a great example of a compelling Superman that isn't too dark or deviates too far from his origins.
His "cardboard world" speech is an amazing thing to listen to. He holds back because he could hurt thousands of people, one moment of inattention could kill someone he loves by holding a little too tight for a little too long.
I'd say either Booster Gold, Blue Beetle, and Plastic man are the most iconic comic relief characters, but if I were to say who would be the most iconic superhero it would have to be Robin.
@@xxfazenoscoper360doesnosco2 booster gold is a character from the Justice League Ultimate 2004 cartoon series which if u haven’t seen u should because it’s one of the best Superhero cartoon shows ever definitely beating DC movies now and on par with marvel
Everyone should read All Star Superman. The best Superman related piece of media made. It will literally blow your mind and hopefully start your obsession with one of the greatest comic book writers of all time.
this video is a very good indication as to why people don't get the character, critics yes, but even writers are too focused on the super powered superhero that flies around in a cape and forgets or completely overlook what really makes him a character: Clark Kent.
No he's right, that's why it makes me laugh when people claim he's not relatable as far as the Justice league goes Clark has just about the MOST relatable and humble origins. So I dont get this bs ''oh he's a poweful god'' when he literally grew up raised by two humans. You never see people say that crap about Wonder woman despite her being a literal god, and overpowered as well. It's a dumb excuse.
That is the thing, superman never needed to have another identity, or a family, he could have just hid out in random locations each night or stayed at batmans place, but instead he chooses to have a family, partly because he wants to be human and partly because he cares about them. Because superman always has to be perfect, because superman cannot cry, he cannot falter - Clark has to do it for him.
Often there isn't much of a difference between Kent and Superman. I think writers need to go back to the much more fun and lively Siegel and Shuster version and see what made him work (minus the bullying and murder). For one thing, Superman had a sense of humor. This could be used to make him unlike Kent and Batman. I think writers need to establish more of a divide between the two identities while still showing them as being the same person. People behave differently in different contexts and roles. This is the social truth that made the character compelling. Though I think Kal El has to believe Kent is the true identity for his dynamic with Lois to make sense, even if this isn't true.
@The Closer Look I can't agree with your assessment on Man of Steel being rejected by fans because of the change in continuity. The reason I believe for the backlash against Superman killing, is because there wasn't any set up for this change in character. If the movie focused on setting up Superman's moral codes and not have Superman plunge through populated buildings, that scene I guarantee would have been better received.
Actually, I think MoS did a decent job of showing how strong Supes' moral code was (despite Pa Kent's idiocy). It could have been better, but it was obvious he valued life. That's what made it so jarring when he participated in Metropolis' destruction.
@Pazuzu4All I guess I could see your point. My criticism is based more on a filmmaking perspective. That whole entire destruction scene, the audience sees buildings were torn apart and people just barely surviving. Then there's a scene with Superman and Lois Lane kissing in the middle of all that destruction and people covered in dust saying he saved us. Superman has no remorse over the destruction and after he kills Zod and cries about it for a few seconds, he moves on like nothing happened. There's isn't any consequence to the actions of him killing Zod. Superman doesn't really change because he killed Zod and there hasn't been a proper sequel to prove me wrong.
mufaro guzha Great comments. I absolutely agree. Even though Man of Steel is the only DCEU movie I can say that I *really* like, it's far from a flawless film. I'm still disappointed that Zod's death didn't affect him in any meaningful way, even though it should've.
That and the fact that the situation in the film makes no sense because superman could've done a million things to stop Zod from killing that family. Cover Zod's eyes or fly away.
3:36 Writing perfect figures in a flawed time can still work, mostly because we still live in flawed times. Superman Versus the Elite does this and shows how important it is to have a morally strong character.
Yeah I totally disagree with the sentiment that you need to change Superman to make him interesting. The best counter example I have is Captain America in the MCU, a character who personality wise is just as unflappable, just as straightforward, just as idealistic and perfect as Superman is... but he works. Why? Because his stories aren't about him needing to change; his stories are about the world around him needing to change to meet HIM. And as a result, Cap is the heart and soul of the MCU. Superman should similarly be a beacon of light in the middle of the DCEU. A guy who does what's right even when everyone else believes it's wrong. And if you want to explore his flaws you don't need to change his character to do so - make his flaws his own insecurity about living up to the ideals that he and the rest of the world holds him up to. Because he recognizes that as powerful as he is, he is still one man, he's still imperfect even in his strive for perfection, and it's always possible that he COULD make mistakes, which causes him unfathomable anguish. Make him FEEL every single life he fails to save. But, importantly, never let this anxiety prevent him from acting anyway. That's how you write Superman.
Captain America becoming a rebel as he did, and refusing to have any oversight, preferring to be a fugitive, may be the character being overly idealistic, at least not what many people would consider traditionally idealistic or straightforward.
Superman might come from Krypton, but he was still raised by humans. They were good people, but still flawed like all humans, so the statement that Superman is perfect sounds inaccurate to me. Physically, he is very hard to defeat but he has other flaws that can be explored in ways that show compelling aspects of his characters such as his morals and the people he loves. That's why i would say that Superman is not perfect and a very compelling character.
Here's the thing. What makes CA work is that he is thrown out of his depth. The ideals he held can no longer be as black and white as before. Something that was so straightforward is no longer so. So he is forced to bend his ideals. That's change is what makes him work. His flawless character becomes a flaw
@@triplemoyagames4195 I agree, a lot can be done exploring how superman thinks his power should be used and whether or not it's causing good or bad. One example is how Moore made Superman quit because he tought that he had violated his moral code by killing someone, and therefore, he has no right to exert this power anymore, seeing he could cause a lot of damage in the future.
Superman can be written well if you confront him with a problem his powers can't fix, make him confront a problem with no powers, tempt him into abusing his powers and the fear that he will become a tyrant, or find a way to stick to his morals with the odds stacked against him. Problem is most of those stories have been done.
yeah but in doing this you're straying from the character of superman which is a main point the video was trying to make. If you confront superman witch a problem that he doesn't know how to fix or his powers cant fix then he becomes not so super.
You will probably never see this comment this long after the original video was posted and with no one to upvote my comment into visibility, but one Superman story I highly recommend is Grant Morrison's All-Star Superman comic, this was separate from the main continuity like the Injustice series is, and also thankfully separate from any version of All-Star Batman. It's a self-contained story that sorta maybe serves as the prequel to Morrison's own DC 1.000.000 JLA story, but that's about it. There's also an animated movie that is good, but it skips over a lot and makes a few notable changes, and overall the comic is just better. It deals with challenges presented to a Superman that is stronger than ever due to having attained a solar radiation poisoning thanks to Lex, but also happens to be dying from just that, the last days of Superman so to say. An alternative story that is also brilliant is Alan Moore's run on the Image character Supreme. Supreme was originally a Rob Liefileld (Cable, Deadpool, Shatterstar, etc) character that was just an ultra-powerful and super-violent version of Superman, who Alan Moore turned into basically the perfect Superman story, with super pets, a Superboy period, Kryptonite-standins and a Lex Luthor standin and all of the rest, then cranked it up to 11, a hopeful and joyous silver age Superman story through the eyes of the guy who wrote Watchmen, resulting in the best Superman story never written basically.
I think one of the larger difficulties for Superman is that he has a difficult time allowing people to help him. Or even be close to him at times. The only people we see him get close to are his parents, Lois, and Jimmy Olsen. In most comics, Lois and Jimmy have no idea that Clark is Superman. Lois is close to Superman, but not really Clark, and Jimmy is close to Clark but not Superman. The only person who really knows both identities as himself is his parents. Where Batman has Alfred, Lucious Fox, all of the Robins, and other foster children. Superman doesn’t have those things because he refuses to let people help him. This is partially because he’s so powerful and can handle a lot of problems, so he’s developed the idea that he SHOULDN’T need help. Making some of his major characters flaws to be pride, self enforced loneliness, and an inability to accept defeat. While that last one can be a good trait, it can also be used to create a compelling character arc.
no what it is that people forget what superman is trying to achieve.Trying live his life as normal as possible. They forget about the human factor of supes and focus too hard on his Alien side. In the past we could accept a powerful being saving us but now we live in a world that questions it and are foreign to it. This is why when you said in your "Batman is the best superhero video" You said Batman is the true bruce wayne and his human identity is far from it. A story like Superman should be more embraced given today's talk of immigration and terrorist. His creators created him on the same merit. It why the DCEU is waking up and realizing Humanity and hope has been taken from their movies. Superman's writers forget about Clark, forget about Kal-el and moved on to superman just kicking ass and that great and all but it given no levity to our hero, no drive. Superman s about finding out who you are and over coming the perils of the world and fighting for hope.
Yeah being powerful is a super dumb excuse considering wonder woman an flash are also overpowered. Friggin fox made a good sho about a reality warping mutant, you can write a good story about anything, so the ''too powerful'' excuse is just that, an excuse, a lame one at that considering most of the JL is full of overpowered characters.
I think that the killing Zod scene would have been alright if they had used that. If having to kill someone was what gave him his 'no killing' code, then that would have been an interesting idea and in my opinion. The problem is that Superman kills in BvS and seems not to have gained his code.
I feel it mostly felt stupid because the scene in no way sold the idea that killing Zod was the only option. If you can snap someone's neck you can turn someone's neck away so the innocent's don't die. These people were constantly wrestling each other and hitting each other and now you tell me that Superman can just kill him like that but not just incapacitate him in some way?
@@imperialmarchinhumanbowels5726 Imagine your parents almost 1 inch away from getting heated up by Zod heat vision,you wouldn't think that much but do the easiest solution much less Superman.
@@barryallen9786 Imagine superman actually being able to move and think at superhuman speeds eh? Apart from that yes in such a situation you don think that snapping the neck opposed to just turning it away is the only solution.
If a "Christopher Reeve" version of Superman were in Batman v Superman, the audience would not have cheered as he got his ass kicked. They'd be more likely to hate Batman for hurting him. Furthermore, the Reeve style of Superman, in this age of the nerd, would probably be a massive hit with audiences. I don't get why WB and DC are so afraid to make Superman appear "square" and tend to make him come off like a brooding jock. It's not what the fans want. Furthermore, if you're a writer looking for a way to give Superman "weaknesses," try giving him better villains. The best Superman writers did this. It's why people loved Superman II back in 1981. He had to take on 3 super-powered villains and we felt for the guy! We rooted for him. In the end, he had to outwit them because he couldn't physically defeat them. That's good writing. Only a LAZY writer feels the need to change the character in order to create a story.
The reason why they're afraid to do that is Superman Returns. It was an homage to the Reeve's Superman movies in many ways, and it did not do well. Meanwhile, Nolan Batman movies did great. And so WB decided that Superman needed to be more like Batman, because that, and not the myriad of flaws in Superman Returns, must have been why it did poorly. And when that next movie didn't do as well as they'd hoped, they canceled the sequel and instead tried to make it even more Batman, by adding Batman to it. And that, of course, also under-performed. As Gunn said when talking about Deadpool, studios have a tendency to take completely the wrong things from a movie's success or failure.
@@Axterix13 Yup. Superman Returns has a lot of flaws, but making Clark Kent a "square" isn't one of them. Nor is it being too "light." It's the fact that it's long, slow, ponderous, and doesn't have much to actually say about much of anything. It's that the plot involves Lex Luthor creating an island and the climax is Superman lifting it into space. It's that over the runtime of a 2 and a half hour movie, the only real action sequence involving Superman is a 10 minute plane crash scene that - while good - is similar to stuff in the Reeve movies., and the only OTHER action sequence of note is a boat sinking where Superman isn't even involved. It's that it retreads well worn ground in the hopes of homaging the Donner/Reeve movies without adding anything to any of them. It's that it wastes a well-cast Lex Luthor (in spite of what we later learned about Spacey) by making him do a cheap imitation of Gene Hackman's version. It's that it does nothing to carve it's own identity or voice and everything it DOES add is dumb or simply unpleasant. And yet... it's still a better Superman movie than Man of Steel.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 He's both narcissist and a human supremacist. He's BOTH. They didn't ruin him by making that apart of his character. That IS his character.
Superman: "Oh man, i can't let Zod laser that family of four, now i unfortunately have to break my moral code of not killing people to save them!" - Literally just destroyed the city in his fight with Zod, killing thousands of people
It wasn't his fault! You guys don't get that Zod HAS ALL Sup's powers, Kal can't simply fly him elsewhere. The fight represents two immovable objects colliding, Kal can't stop it, but he does his best, killing Zod is the only thing he refuses to do, but in the end he realizes it's his only choice. But he himself didn't kill one single person aside from Zod.
@@amazingjay3957 I agree, Snyder were probably more interested in filming an epic fight. But again, the movie never shows Sup smashing anyone, all the deaths are either directly atributed to Zod's deathcount, or never really showed. Anyway, the movie's likability were never in the fight scenes for me =D
Doing the same thing he does in Justice League animated series? They fight in middle of the city all the time and destroy buildings as much as they like. Superman even punches Dark Seid through buildings without worrying about who might be in those buildings. They also hide Lex Luthor in middle of city full of people where Amazo comes in to kill him. And heroes don't even bother protecting the people. The source material does the same things as Man of Steel did. People are just blind about it. 🙂
Interesting video. I agree that superman being perfect is an huge disadvantage to the writers. However he can be written well and Justice League Unlimited is a good example of it.
Simply the Best I agree totally it's a problem with a large part of all superhero fanbases'. Any deviation is criticised. Mos and bvs had flaws for sure but I did like how the writers tried to do something different with superman . Perhaps broody and a touch darker wasn't the best choice . But he doesn't have to be the paragon of perfection all the time . He needs flaws to 'humanize ' him
I respectfully desagree my friend, you don't need to make Superman flawed to make him interesting. You just need to make the circunstances arround him so, because in his core he is a character that doesn't change his morals, no matter what there will always be a way. That is what he stands for. Have you read All Star Superman? in that story Grant Morrison fixes that problem by giving the invincible man the kind of problems you can not deal with brute strength, emotional ones. I recommend you read Supergods by Grant Morrison, it might change your view on him. And even with your argument with Cap America, in The Winter Soldier his character is the only glint of light in an otherwise grey world. He did not change with the times, he is a man out of time...
I don't read comic books so I'm out of my element here. But isn't what you are saying happening in Man of Steel? The circumstance of either saving the family or letting Zod kill the family. I would say that is one of the most interesting circumstances he can be in. I saw an argument saying he could have done something different instead of killing Zod, but that wasn't the point. The movie only presented the two options, so those are the two options that should be considered. With the lose-lose situation in the film, it made an impossible decision for Superman: kill or let innocent people get killed (again don't bring up the destruction of Metropolis). His morals wouldn't have allowed for that to happen, but he _had_ to choose one. I thought it was an interesting scene, but I'm also no comic book fan.
That is a complicated one, because even while I agree with you that the scene can be quite interesting, putting Superman in that narrative was the mistake. It brought Warner/DC a lot of trouble for it, so if they are not ready for the consequences or don't even own up to them (just as the problems in BvS where Snyder says his Superman and his Batman don't kill, but we can clearly see otherwise. If you are going to do such things own them, Tim Burton back in the day said his Batman killed, not that I liked that but at least he owned it), then they shouldn't have put Superman in that situation in the first place.
I disagree about it being a mistake to put him in the narrative. People go through lose-lose situations everyday, but they have to make the decision. Why should Superman be exempt from such a choice too?
First, the "Thank you" to your audience was endearing. Second, for characters that have a "flat" story arc, like Superman, growth needs to be shown in supporting characters and even villains. That would be how you keep the stories interesting.
Good video but I disagree and here's why I think Superman isn't hard to write. He thinks he's human I know he's Kryptonian but hear me out. Superman thinks he's human. He was raised by human parents, was friends with humans, had crushes on humans, goes to school like a human, works with humans, hangs out with humans, does human customs, hell he pays taxes like a human. All of his powers are meaningless to his overall character. Superman has the same struggles as Peter Parker in that he lives a normal life & a hero's life. Like Peter, Clark could face money issues. You never see characters like Batman or James Bond face issues like so because we generally believe they have money. As far as his character weakness, why is "he cares too much" a bad thing? That's the same as Spider-Man's weakness. You mention he always gets the girl but that doesn't always happen. I suggest you read Superman Confidential written by Darwyn Cooke & drawn by Tim Sale. It takes place early in Superman's career. While dating Lois, she breaks up with him. The reason because yes he cares too much about others & Lois wouldn't want him to be with her over saving someone's life. It's one of my favorite Superman comics & heart breaking. I think the problem with Superman films is simple. Lack of new villains. All we've had is Lex & Zod. How about Parasite, Metallo, Mr Myx, & Brainiac? New villains could lead to character development & themes. Let's say Supergirl came to Earth. At first, Clark is controlling simply to protect her. We have Brainiac be the villain. He is all about control & holding hundreds of worlds hostage. The film ends with Superman learning to let go & be less controlling & trust Supergirl. Took me 5 minutes to think up that idea for a film & id say the story & themes could work. I will end by saying I'm not a fan of the DCEU Superman as I don't think they've done a good job humanizing him. In the DCEU, Clark/Superman for the most part is boring, cold, emotionless. Only time he showed emotion was when he killed Zod. To be human, you need more than that. Think of all the emotions you experience in a day. Happy, sad, anger, shyness, fear, & etc. We don't brood all day. Still good video but disagree. Big fan of your channel
First of all thanks for your response. The reason him saying "he cares too much" is a problem is not because that is his weakness. Its because that is his BIGGEST weakness. Every superhero has that 'weakness' if you could even classify it as a weakness at all. Kryptonite is not a character weakness. When I said always get the girl that was just a figure of speech. I didn't mean literally every story ends with him literally getting the girl. Its just a phrase that means it nearly always ends happily ever after for him. Also I'm not even joking that idea you just had for that superman story has already been done XD There is an animated film called Superman Unbound which is exactly that with braniac as the villain and supergirl feeling controlled because of Superman's strict supervision. Kind of proves how hard it is to be original with him. Hope you found my response interesting, not trying to be evil just having a conversation :)
I can't believe Nicholas improvised Unbound w/out knowing it... I wouldn't have believed my eyes if you (Closer Look) didn't point it out... I'm prone to thinking writers can write their way out of anything, but if the Unbound thing doesn't make your point a strong one, I don't know what does.
The Closer Look Damn. Forgot about the film. At the same time though, Batman/Superman: Apocalypse did the same themes of control. My idea for Supergirl is moreso of that of a kid & not as a teenager to separate it from that story & the TV show. But still there are more themes you could do. Adapt Superman What's So Funny About Truth Justice & The American Way (yes I know Superman vs the Elite happened as an animated film) using the themes of Justice vs punishment. Involve Parasite in a film where the theme is power. Use a film with Lobo where he captures Superman & takes him off planet. The point is we are so use to the same old Lex & Zod when Superman has some great rogues with new themes we have yet to see in a live action film
Honestly Nicholas... I may have even been thinking of Apocalypse... whatever the case... no matter what her age, there's only so many times we'll see Supes micro-manage Supergirl's life and not reject it eventually. The good angles on new stories need to be less connected to certain characters and more connected to the dynamic we're discussing tweaked different ways for different characters Supes interacts with.. Heck, has anyone done a "having to decide to, or not to put Krypto down" story? Seriously though... a micro-managing of Batman's life was what was needed to be amped up and more nicely formed in the very film that has got us peeved about the current state of the Superman character in film overall. As far as "What's So Funny..."/"Superman Vs. The Elite" concept/story? I'm hard-pressed to think of any BETTER story than that one to tell in live-action (that story is simply pure Superman (AFAIC)... of course there's some great Alan Moore stuff like "For The Man Who..." Anyways.... good discussion!
I mostly agree with you Nicholas.The problem is the writers don't capture the human part of him. Reeve's superman was pretty human and likable (though his movies haven't aged well...) and was more the overall story and other characters that made those movies meh (but I love Christopher Reeves though. He's my superman through and through). The only part I really disagree with you with is that the problem is the villains, and I don't fully think that's true. sure more variety would be nice, but I'd argue they havent even done his more iconic villains well. if they can't doa good lex, why should we bother with a parasite? Almost everyone who's played joker has done either a great job or has simply failed to stand out (thus not bad, but nothing special). basically every batman franchise has a joker. yeah they delve into his other villains as well, but joker is a constant. And lex is supermans joker. his foil. his arch nemesis. his equal but opposite. and I'd say we haven;t gotten a truly good lex. hackman was too jokey imo, spacey could have been amazing but his movie suuuuuuuuuuucked (and he was technically playing hackmans lex), and eisenbergs....oh god i think i just threw up in my mouth a little. its not the variety of the villains, just the quality of the ones we've been given. mind you we dont need lex and ONLY lex like the Reeves superman movies gave us (even when zod was there, lex was there too =/), but if we got a ledger level lex, we'd be fine. I don't think theres any one single issue with his movies. its just a bunch of things. His movies and the characters in them are poorly written and/or acted and/or cast. they don't humanize him...he isn't a god pretending to me a man, he's a man who discovered he has the powers of a god, but the movies seem to always want to reverse that. emotional conflicts feel forced and unorganic. relationships with the people around him feel fake. they should have us spend more time with clark, not with superman...and not in the man of steel way, because there it was superman pretending to be Clark essentially whow as also unsure if he even wanted to be superman...because reasons. and to "the closer look" (i either forgot or just dont know your name, sorry friend). I overall love your videos but I disagree on a tiny little thing here outside of what I already said. The zod scene in MoS. I disliked it. not because superman killed. no. if they truly forced a no win scenario, then i'd be ok with it. the issue was...it was a forced and fake no win scenario. there are several options superman had that I and friends of mine have come up with just for this scene alone. and I'm sure others could think of more. -zod not only didn't have full power yet, but i dont think theres a kryptonian super power that causes them to become super heavy...lift him in the air. fly away from the family. -he's invulnerable. it'd hurt, but just put your hand in front of zods eye you idiot! -he's strong enough to snap his neck and move his head to the totally opposite direction...so why not turn his head slightly/keep it totally steady and have the family run away. -or just keep it steady and let the family stand there..heat vision is actually one of the more draining kryptonian powers. it'd take a while, but zod would be burning solar energy faster than he'd be absorbing it. he should run out. even if that would take far too much time, its still expensive and would gradually weaken him making it easier to do ANY of the above steps -counter with your own heat vision. if the hand thing wont work because somehow the heat vision is so much stronger than their invulnerability that blocking it with his hand isn't an option, then either use your heat vision on his to cancel it out or redirect it OR soot yours at his back ina non-lethal way to disable him I'm fine with putting him in a no win scenario..but this was NOT no win. it wasn't as forced as "martha!" but its still BS. the zod neck snap was winnable, the villains were uninteresting, the main character was unlikable, the supporting cast had no character, no ones motivations made sense, too many cut to flash backs (just start the movie as a kid and go from there! stop going back and forth for no real reason!), seemed like nobody was ever happy making the whole movie seem dreary ( a movie about hope personified should NOT be that dreary), and the action was dull. it didn't feel fun, i didnt feel invested, and i didn't care about anything that was going on, emotional moments made me more angry/frustrated than sad/hurt.
Superman is easy to write for, as easy as any other superhero character. It's about the man he is underneath the red and blue. If you write that well then the action will not only be awesome in its nature but a lot more impactful.
@@sonicsucks20 i’m confused by yr comment cuz imo differentiating him and giving him a more fleshed out personality would make him stand out more versus the flat quality he is now
Why not leave Superman's morals intact but make the characters around him take different positions as to how they should translate into actions? For instance, put him into an international political context and have him getting frustrated by the inability of politicians on different sides to find peaceful solutions. His goal remains saving lives. I'd say you'd need to write more interesting villains to make a perfect Superman work.
I've recently discovered your channel. I think it's fantastic. Your reflection at the end is honest, touching, human, very real and beautifully put. So well put, I imagine not a single viewer found themselves unable to empathise with you. I re-watched the last few minutes a few times. I look forward to more video essays from you.
Another good example of a good Superman Story is Superman vs the Elite. The perfect old fashioned traditional Superman is challenged by a group of up and coming Anti-Heros. A clash of values and ideas, not just of brute force, great story, was a good animated movie as well.
Also a great example of why Superman doesn't kill. It isn't because he has a code or something. But because he is so powerful he can find another way. That's who Superman is, he finds another way and he does all he can to save lives.
@@suarezguy Strength, yes, but he also used his brain, planning events to happen to take place both on the moon and on earth. He basically became full-on Batman in the end.
Superman is vulnerable through his relationships. His relationships are what make him human. We feel for him when Lois, his Mom, or someone he cares about is in jeopardy.
There's only so many times I can see the whole "psychopath wants to destroy/rule Gotham" before it gets old. That is a problem all superheroes face. They've got years of history, and there's only so many stories to tell. Hence why the companies like reinventing the heroes all the time, so they can explore new angles on things.
Aaron Appiah, do you? Because the point wasn't that people being in jeopardy was what makes Supes's relationships human. Its that he's human and thus the relationships are important to him and thus a weakness. Hell I'll leave Batman's words here: "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then... he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him."
Superman did NOT have to murder Zod in that scene. He chose to. He could've easily flown up or thrown him across the room like he's been doing through the film
First off the dumbass family could have just ran and Superman just I don’t know maybe thrown zod to the floor and then snap his back knock zod out and then put him into the phantom zone
L0n3ly Art1st although I agree with you about the option of incapacitating zod over killing him, it's not that simple. Superman is essentially fighting himself; someone with an arguably equal amount of strength, ability, and powers. Logically it'd be difficult to do major damage like that to someone equal to themself, only a lethal attack like the snap of the neck would be something easy enough while minimizing casualties. But the movie doesn't aim to deliver that perfect boy-scout Superman people blindly seek. It gives a more vulnerable take on Superman, a man with so much power and ability, yet with hardly a guidance on what to do with all of his abilities. It's only until he discovers his heritage that he knows his purpose on earth, also that he decides to become the hope people need. It's a complex story, with its faults, but one MUCH preferred over the other bland Superman stories.
Ultimately I think the DCEU is making Superman SEEM hard to write for by bungling everything around their character-building and endlessly parroting extremely condensed origin stories. Nothing is coming out of a place of genuine affection/creativity for the character, it's a race towards the box office as they harvest his icon status for ticket sales. The recent run of stories in the actual DC comics where Superman was purposefully returned to his classical and confident self pretty much proves the idea that he isn't supposed to be written as a brash and inexperienced greenhorn. He's a father figure, he walks on eggshells, he's a perfectly moral being with few weaknesses in a world populated by things entirely different to him. He can be written for, it's just that those in creative control making the movies seem to be ashamed of their roots.
I thought Scott Lobdell's take on the young, New 52 Superman worked really well. He gave Superman (and Kent) a sarcastic sense of humor and had him act more human. His stories were crap, but this characterization helped humanize him. Writers need to understand why Supergirl works much better than Superman. She's not a boring character like him. Making him married with a son was a huge mistake in the long run, and they maybe won't be able to negate it. Splitting Peter and Mary Jane created massive nerd rage. One good thing about Superman's first marriage with Lois is that it was so sterile, nobody gave a shit that it was negated. This is likely why they gave him a son. Lois just seemed like Superman's lesbian buddy and roommate. They aren't married, but the Clark and Lois relationship in the new movies works much better, though I'm sure it enrages feminists. My problem with this relationship is that it is pretty mature for what should be a kid/teen's character. It's likely off putting to younger consumers with disposable income.
@@markj6606 Actually no. The reason why giving him a son worked in the first place was they actually treaded new grounds with the character. Superman being a dad was something refreshing which is why many people loved it.
Smallville did well for the first few seasons. (Though they stuck to mostly pre-Superman heroics where CK was learning to be the MoS, which gave him limitations)
I'm so happy to have found this channel. I'm not a writer nor have I or do I presently aspire to be, but it's so satisfying to know and be able to articulate why I like or don't like some character or movie.
Personally, the reason I hated the scene where superman kills Zodd is because it was stupid and badly done. They go through the entire movie with superman doing awesome, mindblowing things. And then they get to this scene and they completely forget that THE CHARACTER CAN FLY. There's nothing holding superman in place at that moment, he's not drained by kryptonite, all he's gotta do is lift zodd sky-high where his laser eyes can't hit anybody!!! But no. After a full 10 minute scene of superman fighting zodd in the middle of a populated metropolis, leading to countless deaths by proxy, he's suddenly overcome with the will to save that one family, while apparently FORGETTING ABOUT ALL OF HIS POWERS.
George Daugherty okay. And he did. But not in the way that he should've. A well-written failure can make a character more human, this is true, but a poorly written failure just makes the character poorly written. My point was that superman didn't even attempt to limit casualties. He picked fights with Zodd in populated areas not once, but TWICE in MoS. Even after the movie established earlier that superman had the strength to carry Zodd across miles of land. My point was that this scene was meant to be a trapped-in-a-corner scene, with no other option than to kill the villain. But the problem was, there WERE other options, and superman came off as a dumb character that couldn't register them.
Your are completely wrong. Superman could have not taken the fight elsewhere. He was dealing with others like him. He couldnt have not flown away. ZoD had the strength to hold him self in place. He also presented him with the ultimate dilemma. Stop me know I will continue, it will never end more will die. Either fans like you are dense or just don't want him challenged.
Simply the Best No, I want him challenged. I just don't want him to be stupid. Nothing in the scene indicated that Zodd was holding him down. They could've had him fly up only for Zodd to force him back to the ground, but they didn't. They could've had him try to take the fight elsewhere, then Zodd forces him against the wall, pinning him in place, but they didn't. No, they made both characters sit in the center of a room, unconfined, and pretended that it was the "ultimate dilemma" that you referenced. Add to that the fact that superman already moved "others like him" quite easily earlier in the movie, and it becomes just bad writing. I want my heroes challenged, but I don't want the challenge to be so poorly written that even the audience can think of better options.
Jus Kayo but flying Zod somewhere with less people would mean that 1) supes wouldn't have to worry about collateral damage (although he didn't seem too concerned anyway) and 2) Zod would be far less capable of hurting people, allowing supes to focus on the fight. And again, given that earlier in the movie, they established that superman CAN pick up and carry one of his own for miles (im referring to the scene on his farm), it makes no sense that supes just decides to fight in a hugely populated area, and at no point tried to move Zod away from the people. It's not the fact that he killed Zod that I have a problem with, it's that the whole situation was contrived and made Superman look like a moron that only cares about people when it suits him.
FearingVirus And you think Zod would've just allowed Superman to fly him away with no problem? And what then? They'd fight for days then kiss it out? Don't be ridiculous. There were only ever 2 options once Superman blew up the world engine. Either Zod killed Clark and annihilated humanity or Clark kills him
Aaron Barlow Agreed. The world has become darker, and even though he's no longer the soldier who follows orders, he is still Captain America. He hasn't changed or compromised his morals. He is, in many ways, what Superman in the DCEU should have been. Marvel didn't shy away from his boy scout personality.
True, but Marvel always kept it light and breezy with simplistic morality. They never delved deeply into character motivation or social issues. I expect their movies to be the same popcorn affairs--fun and not challenging
I think a good way to create a flawed version of Superman would be where he has hidden character flaws so that even if he presents himself as the hero everyone can look up to, something is causing him to struggle to live up to his own name (i.e. All Might and his injury).
Your work is getting really good , this is near poetry! .. you take what we think of (we people who view movies as art not just money) ,and you put it in words in a really good way .. one of the few voices of reason in youtube. I'm proud to be a fan. :))
Dude, your statement at the end really spoke to me. I only recently subscribed to your channel but have watched a handful of your videos before then over the years when you were already well into the hundreds of thousands of subscribers. What you said about being terrified of being a cog in someone else's machine is something I deeply relate to, and seeing how far you've come in escaping that by succeeding in doing something you love is inspiring. Congratulations Henry! You truly are an excellent creator.
Extremely well said. I felt exactly the same way about the closing remarks here. I hope all is well with you too. Life can be strange, but a gift all the same. Best wishes my friend.
I really love your videos. I really don't like horror or anything of that genre, but i don't have to watch those video essays. Thanks for making something for everyone!
Superman is about hope and inspiration. In some ways, the feel of a good superman story have more in common with a movie about Gandhi or Mandela, than with a Batman story. The tension/conflict should be about his meeting with a cynical/cruel world, and the impossible situations created by that meeting, not about his inner darkness. Breaking that good heart of his, while putting him in conflict with a corrupt world. I think Marvel did that with the Captain America movies.
Which is exactly why Captain America the Winter Soldier works and Man of Steel doesn’t. Marvel wasn’t afraid to let Cap be a square character who followed his moral code. DC just followed suit of Nolan’s Batman. Man of Steel wasn’t inspiring to me. Superman rarely saved as many people as he could’ve. Oil tankers are thrown and Superman dodges them instead of catching them. When Zodd is about to kill innocent civilians, Superman didn’t rush to the innocent and fly them out like I expected him to, he chose to break Zodd’s neck. This version of Superman feels so confused and convoluted. There’s little to no optimism. Some ideas about trust were mentioned but I’m upset that they weren’t explored more. Instead we got an hour long CGI transformers fight of god like aliens being thrown through buildings and causing collateral damage. A complete waste of a conclusion. Don’t mind my rant, I completely agree and just wanted to share my cynicism for this movie
Yeah. Kind of like Paddington. The main protagonist isn't flawed but the people around him are and it's because of his actions and interference that they change.
For the record: yeah, this stuff does help me with a certain novel I've been working for years on. So thank you. You are making a difference. To me at least
It's very simple to make Superman interesting. Do one of two things: 1. Have your main character be Jimmy Olsen or Lois Lane or somebody who can be witness to his superheroism. 2. Stop writing him like a messiah and start writing him like a police chief (big blue boyscout anyone?).
The end of your video touched my heart. I have been binging your videos all day to help me with my writing process. You are not alone in feeling unfulfilled at times. I'm glad, and proud to call myself a subscriber. Keep up the great work, brother.
I fundamentally disagree that a character without big flaws is a bad character. I sort of understand why this idea has spread so much, it does hold some truth to it after all. I can't see how perfect characters in a perfect world could ever make for more than a slightly interesting short story. But a perfect character in an *imperfect* world? Now _that_ can be interesting. Either the world breaks, or the character does. There are countless amazing stories within that conflict that have been, and _will_ be told. The fact that it's not currently in fashion detracts nothing from their value.
I have to disagree about Captain America not being an archetype. He may not be an Olympian god like Supes, he's more in the ball league of Theseus if his quest were to bring glory to his country. Issue 1's cover features him punching Hitler in the face, it's honestly hard to get more archetypal than that. Despite the fact I think Supes has become obsolete a long time ago, I want to extend my heartwarming congratulations on your channel soaring to new heights. Keep it going, homie!
"Despite the fact I think Supes has become obsolete a long time ago..." 1. You also apparently think 'become' and 'became' are interchangeable. Hint: they're not. 2. You also apparently think all you need to see what wealth a country has is its GDP. 3. Explain this to me: how is Superman obsolete? And don't give me the usual bullshit about how Paragon heroes are obsolete or powerful heroes are obsolete because they evidently aren't since there are many examples of Paragon heroes and powerful heroes in media today that are both cherished and have obsessive fanbases over them that keep arguing for them in versus battles.
Most of the main superheros are the same character with slight variations. The one exception is maybe Matt Murdock. This is a character who got some really good writers and was allowed to be a flawed human being. Saying Superman is fundamentally different from other superheroes is preposterous. They are all based on him, including Batman. Supergirl works just fine.
+Old Man Hogan Wolverine was different in the 70s and 80s comics. In the modern ones, he's basically the same guy as everyone else with superficial differences. The movie Wolverine is a great character though. I dread what Disney will do to him and Jackman is not replaceable. Moon Knight is written as a lunatic sometimes in the comics, so he is different and sometimes barely a hero. I don't see Disney making a comic accurate movie about him. TV maybe. What's interesting about Matt Murdock is that he is written with major flaws that get him in trouble sometimes. And his motivations are not completely altruistic. He's a character for adults. They toned him down for the TV show. The gray Hulk is also a great character, but I don't see Disney doing him either. And of course Deadpool is unique. And there are other lesser known characters like Jack Knight. I don't count Constantine as a superhero. But the vast majority of superhero characters are basically the same guy, sometimes with superficial differences.
That monologue at the end was really rather wonderful. Your videos make you seem so, exceedingly wise and parts in your videos like those really make me feel like I know you better and you feel far more human. you have become one of my favourite youtubers.
I personally have never understood why people find him hard to write for. Superman as a character is a man of action, one who always fights for what is good even when others think it is foolish. He puts the weight of the world on his shoulders and does everything he can to be the best hero he can possibly be, while simultaneously placing the greatest of expectations upon himself to the point that even one small hiccup will seem like the most unforgivable failure to him. To add to that Superman places himself in the shoes of humanity to experience what he views as the beauty of humanity. He has a job, eats, sleeps, falls in love, has friends, and has a family. He also experiences pain, loss, sadness, loneliness, and the struggles that we face everyday. Superman could have chosen to be a god detached from humanity, instead he chose to experience the beauty of human life while also using his god-like powers to fight for good and the people who can’t fight for themselves. If you can’t make him a compelling character when the concept of him alone is already compelling, then I’m afraid you just aren’t that great of a writer.
I find it hilarious that so many people in the comment section have so many different reasons as to why they disagree with you... So many different explanations as to why Superman is an interesting character... Which gives you exhibit A: He's a great character that's easy to write BECAUSE HE CAN BE INTERPRETED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS!!!! You can focus on the SUPER, e.g. "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and "All-Star Superman". You can focus on the MAN, e.g. "Earth One" and "American Alien". You can find the perfect balance e.g. John Byrne's "Man of Steel" series, or "For Tomorrow". He can be dark and brooding, like in Man of Steel (film), or he can be bright and shiny like in Justice League (film). And don't even get me started on what you can do with him in Elseworlds stories (Injustice, Red Son) You can nerf him if that's where your strengths lie, e.g. Superman the animated series, or you can let him unleash his full strength like in Superman vs the Elite. 80 fuckin years of comics and you guys are wondering how anyone can find him interesting... Smh
Kudos on your achievement on this segment. Keep on producing and inspiring others about characters flaw and struggles he/she have to go through in all movie genre. We all can appreciate it because that's how real life everyone has to go through.
You mean Clark Kent is interesting as Superman. Clark Kent is the person, the WHO, Superman is the archetype and career, WHAT he decides to do. There are plenty of superheroes who match or exceed Superman's list of powers and accomplishments, but its only Clark Kent as Superman that makes him the legend.
There is a reason you're getting so many subscribers: Your videos are brilliant! I just keep watching one after another, can't help it, they're so interesting. It can be easily seen how much thought you put in your works; they are insightful, intelligent and entertaining. Good job :)
You just inspired me, I'm writing some (a lot) of stories for myself from DC and Marvel, I'm doing one with Captain Atom and Superman, and I knew where to pick on with Atom, but not with Superman, thank you, I figured it out
Have u been reading superman rebirth or Lois and Clark? the current superman has crap ton of awesome stories the thing thats they did to make him interesting is superman becoming a father so in lots of superman titles we see him from another perspective like his son is a frequent example also superman birthright is another good superman comic. Also reason why people don't like superman in man of steel is because they tried too hard to become the dark knight, flaws are fine but if u said to someone this depressing person is superman its too hard to believe. Also David S Goyer does not care about superman and his super generic philosophical dialogue people not sounding like real people. Still decent video good luck on improving practice makes perfect.
Nerd Zone! the issue is that rebirth is only as good as it is, because of the history tied to superman. in the dceu it would take at least 4 or 5 movies before rebirth movie would really work
I'm not stating that do a rebirth I'm just stating here's a good example for a good Superman story. Max Landis Superman comic ( I heard is really great), just starting writing a decent Superman isn't that difficult as it's perceived a good one, however, is difficult. Superman being flawed is fine as long as his moral code is in place and shows the spirit of the character. Superman isn't a hard character to write he's an alien, but lived his life as a human ( shows the best humanity), his non-biological father/mother taught him how to be a good man, choosing for himself to help people and bring a smile to their face. Superman isn't super interesting, just a guy who u wanna root for and has a sense of hope, but rather a good Superman movie needs to focus on a good villain ( rebirth we see the events in a child's perspectives Johns so doesn't apply as badly but action comics it does) thats why Lex Luthor and Brainiac is so recognisable, we need to see others peoples point of view and how it differs from superman. U need to make a good circumstance for the character, like a dark superman movie can work, but everywhere around him is depressing and dark while superman beaming sense of hope, that everyone roots for.
+HappyLarry The New 52 Superman was an appealing character under Lobdell, though his stories were bad. He (and Giffen) made Superman and Clark more likable and human and gave them a sense of humor. Clearly the company forced him and other writers to revert to something like the old, familiar, boring Superman.
2 of the most common mistakes I see in the movies is either Superman is just a Good Samaritan and he casually saves people for 2 and a half hours which is just not enough to entertain the general audience or there are these massive cgi infested glorious Dragon Ball Z battles in the street which are not really accurate to supes character as a whole and just not fitting. I think a key solution would be to show Superman throughout the film saving people and not engaging in battle but do it in glorious ways like the plan saving scene in Superman returns which is arguable the most iconic scene in all of Superman’s cinema entrees. And then at the end he fights the main antagonist in a cool battle montage. Superman is someone who rarely engages in a fight, 90% of the time he’s just saving people which isn’t all that thrilling so some big leaps need to be taken. In the comics there have been some really cool saves, like in The Dark Knight Returns he sends a nuke to space and almost dies of radiation poisoning or stopping the Burj Khalifa from collapsing in Superman Unchained. We’re talking about a really selfless dude who doesn’t give two fucks about his life and does the right thing no matter what. A masterpiece of a film is waiting mark my words.
How can Superman be uninteresting because he is "Perfect"? Then how is it that Superman is arguably the most read and popular Super Hero of all time? That statement doesn't make sense. Comic book writers have been telling interesting stories of Superman for decades without compromising or changing his character. Writers who can't do it now without changing Superman's core traits maybe just aren't up to the task. Create a new Super Hero if you don't want to tell a story about Superman.
I disagree with what you say about Captain America. He pretty much embodies what Superman is, especially in the 'Civil War' film. Or could you please elaborate upon what you mean by what you say? Also have you watched "Superman vs. the Elite"? It's a perfect idea of a very well-written Superman story. And there's one Superman: TAS episode where he faces the loss of everything he ever wanted during an episode where Mongul traps him with a 'Black Mercy' vine which grants Superman his greatest fantasy ever come true (of just being a normal Kryptonian human being) and has to drag himself out of it later on. The problem with Superman writers is that they don't understand his character isn't about being perfect and not having faced a sense of loss. It's about how he chooses to respond to a sense of loss, whether real, or perceived.
agree, In Civil War you see that Cap isn't just a pro american hero, they explore that he will to whatever it takes and go against even his friends to stay true to what he believes in, Justice, and doing the right thing. Even if it means loosing everything u cared for.
Someone said, and I’ll say it too. Read Allstar superman. I disagree that changing his character makes him interesting and that comic series proves my point.
Definitely a worthwhile perspective. Also, I feel you when you were talking about the little existential crisis you mentioned at the end. If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you check out The School of Life channel where there are video essays aimed at giving viewers the mental tools, that you are just beginning to find on your own, to accept life and find a way to make the most out of it. Keep up the good work!!
Watching this video a year later.. you’ve come a long way man. You’ve consistently put out great and informative content that improves the way myself and others experience/enjoy these movies. The majority of these channels are fanboys and seem to be blinded by that, so your channel has been a welcome breath of fresh air.
I couldn't come to an agreement with almost any of your points....... 1. Superman isn't hard to write. If he were, he wouldn't have lasted for 80 years and wouldn't have been a sales leader for almost half of that time. 2. Superman is the most relate-able character for me. He's a simple farm boy from Kansas who moves to a big city and wants to do the best with his abilities. 3. Imagine what a young farm boy would go through when he has to accept his abilities that are far beyond those of mortal men, and when he discovers he's an Alien from a civilization that's 27 light years away. 4. His origin story is by far the most epic one. 5. Superman covers more genres of story-telling than any other character. From hardcore sci-fi, Investigative Journalism, Romance, Humor, Gang wars to magic and hocus pocus, Superman can and has successfully adapted into any and every form of storytelling. 6. The notion that every character needs to be dark to be likeable is the worst idea one can come up with. A hopeful and bright character, if done well, can bring in all the money one needs. Just look at Wonder Woman. Don't go around telling people she's dark. 7. You CAN NOT be more wrong about Captain America. He's NOT dark. If anything, Superman has done a lot more darker things than Captain America. So, stop harping on about things you barely know about. The very fact that you find Injustice (an incoherent and sadistic gorefest) enjoyable tells far too much about your preferences.
I just disagree with you on points 1 and 6. 1. He is hard to write for, movie wise. There haven’t been any “good” Superman movies since the 80/90s. 6. You don’t need to have a character be dark to be good, you just have to make him flawed and I think that’s what he is trying to say in the clip
@@luislima3476 It's more he's hard to find the right writers for him, as pretty much everyone in Hollywood is apparently allergic to straight up good guys these days.
You make some interesting points/theories in this video but as a Superman fan for over 20 years I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything you said. If Superman is indeed so hard to write for as you suggest, than why are there 100s if not 1000s of good Superman stories out there?
Lex should be smarter than Superman. Zod should be a better warrior. Doomsdays should be more powerful. Lex Luther should challenge Superman's adherence to the law, Zod should challenge Superman's noble nature, doomsday should challenge Superman's determination and physical prowess.
Lex Luthor is more intelligent than Superman in the Injustice comic series because of the fact that he was able to make a perfect clone of Superman, and he was able to make a pill that makes any person that takes the pill is as strong as Kyrptonians; Lex Luthor also makes Superman obey and abide by the adherence of the law in the Red Sun and the injustice comic series, but you're right on the other two view points about Supermans character.
Possible, yes. Easy, no. Even Rebirth is getting alot of hate. However, once more, the belief that Superman doesn't kill in the source material is completely false. He's been killing since the mid 80s Comics at least. He killed Mxyzptlyk in "Whatever happened to the man of Tomorrow", Zod in "Superman #22" (1988), Doomsday in "The Death of Superman", Darkseid (his life essence), in "Final Crisis", Doomsday again in "Superman: Doomed", a Kryptonian dragon in "Superman Unchained", and the Joker in Injustice. Also, during the Golden Age, Superman deliberately had a mad scientist killed by his own weapon. Despite this, I somewhat agree with this video. No matter what you do with Superman, half the fanbase is gonna get their panties in a twist. If you focus too much on the Gary Stu versions, you're gonna piss off those who want a humble farm boy. Focus too much on the Human aspects, you'll piss off those who prefer stories centered on his alien heritage. Focus too much on Superman himself, then you'll piss off those who wish for stories centered on Clark Kent's escapades. And because of the sheer amount of stories built around these different beats, it is absolutely impossible to satisfy any more than half the fanbase. It's not happenin'...
Deo Robinson u have hit it dead on the nose. I don't read much of supes( or many comics these days because of the Gary Stu aspects) but for me the best Superman I have read: Byrn's Man of Steel, Morrison's All Star Superman and Injustice. also Superman is great almost better as a background or secondary character like the way Miller used him in DK returns. sure he has the power of a god but his human upbringing could easily give him some political nationalistic view that is counter intuitive to understand. maybe put morrison and byrn in a room to come up with a story then have someone turn it into a screenplay.
Deo Robinson Thank you. I don't understand the zod killing hate if he killed him in the comics, had he been killing random petty criminals like Batman in BVS, the anger would be more justifiable.
I didn't know Rebirth was getting hate. I've heard nothing but praise from the recent Superman comics. Only thing I've heard people complaining about is lack of New52 Superman, but that has already been resolved.
Deo Robinson no it isn't. just write the character correctly by balancing ALL of his major portrayals you described into one complex multilayered character.
I am a fan of Superman you are referencing. But Man of Steel failed because *leading up to the moment* where Superman had to make the moral judgement of whether or not to kill Zod to save the family, *was not written and directed well.* Minutes before we had a character who up until that moment aimlessly punched his enemies into buildings killing and injuring thousands if hot hundreds of thousands. Then afterwards it was not mentioned or referenced, he just turns up at the Daily Planet then the film basically ends. In Christopher Reeves Superman II the entire film focuses on Superman wrestling with character flaws earlier and it is not glossed over.
Superman doesn't need to be "perfect". He just needs to be written more earnest and hopeful. 'Superman and Lois' has just shown that it's possible to have a hopeful and earnest "thanks, my mom made it for me" Superman. You don’t need to turn him evil, or edgy like Batman. Superman is not invincble either. His own rouges gallary is more than a match for him physically.
Cavill a poor choice- Superman supposed to have a sense of humor, have light moments, not be dour and brooding all the time. Christopher Reeve was the best at being Superman- his humanity made him what he was, not striving for perfection.
Problem is that Superman is an ideal, not a character. His best stories are about the people around him. This is why the Donner movies worked, and Man of Steel was discordant. Why Superman vs the Elite works and Superman vs Batman doesn't. I enjoy your work and you have sound reason behind your presentation. Nice job.
That's crap, if that were true he woudn't beas popular as he is today, and Smallville certaily wouldn't have lasted forr 10 seasons, longer than any other superhero tv show today might I add.
I stumbled across your channel today completely by accident and I have been devouring your videos so far! Keep up the fantastic work, as a creator it's really interesting to hear these different perspectives and reviews of what does and doesn't work in current media, and your style of delivery is very entertaining. You have a new subscriber!
I think Superman and Lois proved that you can have a comic accurate Superman while not making him a perfect Boy Scout like Reeve’s Superman (Reeve’s superman is actually very different from the comics)….also in MOS they established that Krypton’s atmosphere negates the yellow sun powers, the movie could’ve made it so a kryptonian scout ship was still functional and then they could’ve had that ship’s atmospherics match krypton’s and imprison Zod there
Anybody read Red Son superman? honestly i think its the best you can do without compromising who superman is. Even if communism is frowned upon in a general sense nowadays it makes sense for a leader who is actually invincible and incorruptible.
Patrick Barnes Communism is frowned upon for a good reason. It led to hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide and can never realistically work without compromising anyone's rights.
That's a primary part of the conflict of Red Son Superman, it's not communism that's special in the context its him after all. How he affects the people around him. Superman the character being an inherently good person with this ideology is what the story is really about at its core.
There is a third way to make a good Superman story. In fact - it is simple. Make the story "not about Superman". Supermen needs to be present all the time. The story would revolve around him, as he is very hard to ignore. Even so - the story doesn't have to be about him. He will simply the all powerful entity that shapes everyone's fate. Think of something like "an oposite Cthulhu". Watch this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7DyRxlvM9VM.html
The superman scene where he "has to kill zod" is TERRIBLE not because he kills but because it is forced. If he has enough strength to snap someone's neck like that he could easily turn his head away from the family. Also the way he snaps his head turns it to the direction of the family was in so the family would fry as part of the neck snap.
I am in the minority here, but the way writers wrote Superman in Doomsday Clock was an abomination. It build up so dramatically the conclusion between Supermsn „vs“ Dr. Manhattan, only for Dr. M to press the reset button on everything because he was so impressed of how perfect Superman is that he created another Clark Kent. It only solidified the „Superman is too perfect“ trope everyone slready hates about him.
Here's the thing. Batman's my favourite superhero, so I like him better than supes. Now this might come as a surprise but, why this is, is because I find batman more inspiring than superman. Superman is almost flawless in every way, he's op, but has only one physical weakness; kryptonite. He's akso handsome and very compassionate. Now clearly this should be enough to inspire me right? Wrong. He has no flaws. I can't relate to him in any way. In order for a character to be inspiring, they need to have daily struggles to work through. People don't aspire to be flawless people, they aspire to be people who work through their flaws.
I disagree Bruce Timm makes Superman a very compelling character, it's more so what makes the show great is that the characters around him are very captivating and interesting. What makes the original Superman stories great and the animated series great, is you see how the characters around him change. Not all humans are deeply flawed like Batman, some are role models like Superman and the story is captivating in that you see the people around him change.
