The Superman problem: Can he still fly in the 21st century?

Thirty years ago, the Man of Steel was flying high at theaters. But will he ever get off the ground again?

Richard Donner's "Superman," released in December 1978, was a box-office triumph and critics were, for the most part, cheering right along with the fans. Roger Ebert called the film "a pure delight," while the late Jack Kroll wrote in Newsweek that Donner had pulled off "a major feat in filmmaking."

It was by nature a sunny film, sentimental and playful, never embarrassed while soaring with its John Williams score and (literally) with its special effects. But show it to a teenager today and he or she will snicker and roll their eyes. These are kids who have sat in dark theaters with Wolverine, Hellboy and Heath Ledger's Joker. If they're holding out for a hero, you can bet he's not going to be plucking kittens out of trees, reciting patriotic mottos and chasing down bumbling bad guys named Otis.

This brings us to the Superman problem. Warner Bros. just pulled in half a billion dollars in the U.S. alone with the relentless nihilism of "The Dark Knight," and the other hero films of the summer ("Hancock," "Iron Man," "Hellboy 2," etc.) presented troubled protaganists who struggle as much with themselves as they do with bad guys. So, of coruse, Warner now wants Superman to tone down the Boy Scout stuff.

Lauren A.E. Schuker had a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal that quoted Warner Bros. executive Jeff Robinov (who, by the way, is apparently the man who came up with the idea of postponing the sixth "Harry Potter" film until next year) about the plans for the Man of Steel's next flight in Hollywood:

Like the recent Batman sequel — which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far — Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

We've heard this before. There was a series of Superman projects announced that had the hero dead, dying, powerless and, perhaps worst of all, portrayed by Nicolas Cage in a suit of armor. The thing is, Superman has always been a daytime hero; he's not Batman prowling the gutters of Gotham looking to exact revenge on every street punk in the world.

Over at Splash Page, the MTV blog about comics and films, Kevin Smith weighed in that Hollywood shouldn't assume that the hero of Metropolis needs to be dipped in Gotham muck to be viable on the screen.

“You always have to always keep Superman very distinct from Batman,” he related. “Batman can be brooding and bleak and dark but Superman — if you want to take a realistic approach to him that’s fine, but I don’t think you can turn him into an angry character. Superman is about the hope in people, the good in people, whereas Batman is about the more driven, hungry for justice angry side of us. [So] I don’t know if doing a dark Superman is the approach, but I’m all for a reboot.”

Jeph Loeb also cautioned against forgetting the core character of Superman, an enduring pop-culture figure that dates to the summer of 1938.

“Superman, the character, inspires hope, as opposed to Batman, who inspires fear,” elaborated Jeph Loeb, who added that his “Superman for All Seasons” (which he created with frequent collaborator Tim Sale) could be a proper approach for a possible revamp of the franchise. “‘Superman for All Seasons’ is about Clark Kent trying to deal with the fact that he has this incredible power and responsibility, and that was an interesting concept to me. And one of the other things that I find interesting is that he’s set out to perform a job that will never finish, a never-ending battle. Is that dark? I don’t know.”

The last time the hero was on the screen wasn't that long ago, of course, and it was a movie that (in the mind of the filmmakers at least) was tinged with some darkness. Bryan Singer's "Superman Returns" in 2006 ended up being respected more than it was liked. It was, sadly, a fairly flat and windy affair. It's a shame, I was really rooting for the film. I went down to Australia in 2005 to do a set visit for a long feature in the Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times and I had high hopes for what everyone assumed would be a major new franchise.

In my opinion, the problem with Superman is his villain. Who wants to see Lex Luthor trotted out again? Kevin Spacey was fine in the role and Gene Hackman was fun to watch, but can we just get someone else in one of these movies? The reason that Batman, the X-Men and Spider-Man have thrived in theaters is their parade of quality villains. Superman's list is stunningly short. (And, a note to Rabinov: Please note that Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was hardly a brooding, dark hero; he was fun and brightly colored, which was true to his story heritage.)

To my mind, the best thing Warner Bros. could do with the next Superman film is to go cosmic, not gritty. Take Superman into space, have him fight off an alien invasion of earth or grapple with Darkseid or Mongul. The movie can be fun (a la "Iron Man") without being corny or campy, and you can make his enemies as dark and dangerous as you want. But leave the pure heroic nature of Superman intact, or don't bother putting that famous costume on him. Batman succeeded not simply because he was dark, but because director Christopher Nolan found the authentic heart of the character. The movie broke box-office records not by copying the approach of another film, but by daring to go its own way. Do the same soul-searching for Superman. Instead of bringing him down to street level, let him fly higher than ever.

-- Geoff Boucher

Clark Kent artwork by Gary Frank from the cover of upcoming Action Comics issue (#870, on sale October) courtesy of DC Comics.

David James photograph of Brandon Routh as Superman from "Superman Returns," courtesy of Warner Bros.

Superman tussles with Mongul, artwork by Ryan Sook from the cover of "DC Universe Special, Superman: Mongul," from June of this year.

Comments

[Damin]

As much as I think a big nemesis on par with Superman's abilities will add vitality into the movie franchise, it still needs something "meatier" for today's audience.

The problem with the Singer reboot is that it made assumptions that everyone knows the character of Superman already, which most people already do, but it should of pushed the character development further and be bold with it. Let the character grow beyond the boy scout.

Here's one story idea that popped into my head reading this post.

If they want to keep Superman in the world we know today, have him swarmed by paparazzi at the drop of a hat. Have the public treat him like a Hollywood celebrity, where they clamor for every piece of gossip about him. Then during an encounter where he fights some serious rampaging criminals, show a series of events where his best intentioned actions result in the serious injuries of a school bus full of kids and/or nuns. This could even result in deaths, but I don't think DC would allow Superman's character to be stained this way.

All this is captured on film by, I dunno, Jimmy Olsen. The Daily Planet has to report something like so it gets printed in all the papers. Jimmy's film footage is shown streaming across television and the Internet. Then the movie's story can get into the world turning against Superman because of people cynically enjoying "perfect" people falling from their pedestal. The influence from the media's tendency of running a story like this into the ground from every angle only fuels this new attitude towards Superman.

Have Clark Kent go through this period where he questions himself and contemplates never donning the tights again. Meanwhile the plot rolls along behind this story arc about a great threat to the world culminating. This threat becomes public and regular people are powerless against it. Heck, you could throw in tidbits and cameos of other DC costumed super heroes being unsuccessful in their attempts to combat this threat as a tie-in to a possible Justice League movie. While this is going on Clark Kent visits the seriously injured in the hospital out of guilt and perhaps the injured or their visiting relatives say they don't blame Superman because something worse would of happened had he not been there. With this insight and renewed spirit Superman re-emerges in the third act to as the catalyst that turns the tide against menace.

[AvengerHawkeye]

As I am reading some people's thoughts - it becomes painfully clear as to how WB got into this mess with Superman.
The big trap is trying to apply our current world as it is into a Superman story and it doesn't work. Superman was created as a light of hope and in order for the fantasy to work Superman can't be walking by crack dealers,chased by paparazzi or having out of wed-lock children.
I went over that list at the man of steel movie site of things that were wrong with 'Returns' and it completely makes that movie clearly out of whack with the first 2 Donner films. The story has holes that can't be filled with a sequel unfortunately. At least not a direct one.
If Singer wanted to base that movie in Donner-verse he failed, if it was Superman with a realistic feel and touch it failed. Case in point from the list: Why doesn't Lois ask when did they have sex? No 21st century woman is going to find out she has Superman's son and not wonder as to when the event took place. Little things like that push the movie into a good drama that they planted Superman into and he didn't belong there in the first place.
Stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Voltaire Bohol]

A Superman reboot = Hulk reboot.

I'm not saying that the recent Incredible Hulk movie bombed, it sold well, except that the Marvel execs were expecting more, and that's the reason why they decided to put on hold any plans for sequel on the Norton movie. That is exactly what's going to happen with WB plans of a Superman reboot.

The story has been laid on Superman Returns, Singer promised a Wrath of Khan on the next one, The Dark Knight is the Empire Strikes Back of Batman because it is the second part. Superman 2 is way better than the first one. Superman Returns is not the second part, it is just the first part. They should compare Returns more with Batman Begins and not The Dark Knight.

[Charles]

Can anyone please explain what NEW element Singer added to Superman that's worth following up?

The Superman that abandons his Mom? - oh and the earth and everyone else...
The bastard child?
The love triangle?
The big scary rock in space?
The awful maroon & blue suit?

Every unresolved plot thread left at the end of Returns = the very reason people didn't connect with this movie.

This isn't a beloved cast of actors with great on screen chemistry given a low octane script = Star Trek the Movie, than can be therefore saved by a better 'wrath of khan' sequel.

WB have made the right call, you can't fix something whose basic premise is so contaminated - that a real hero could abandon his home, Mom, Lois and his son.

[Anne]

I'm with those who believe that Superman can still fly in the 21st century, and it was "Superman Returns" that convinced me of that fact. I enjoyed the movie, and I agree that it was a fascinating character study. I can see why some people who went to the theater looking for an action movie rather than the drama they ended up seeing weren't thrilled by it, but I thought it largely stayed true to the characters and set up dramatic plot lines that I, for one, would love to see further explored, especially the concept of Jason. Lois trying to decide whether she should stay with Richard, Richard trying to figure out how to react to the knowledge that Lois is still in love with Superman, and Superman trying to figure out how to bond with his son can all serve as the background of a fantastic action film. It's Superman's positive attitude and sense of hope that appeal to people, and those qualities can shine to greater effect when he's faced with dark situations, as long as the positive attitude isn't overdone. A good sequel to Superman Returns can give us hope, drama, and action. Here's hoping we get to see it.

[Hero is ... um]

I just watched "Superman Returns" again last night and, despite the jet rescue scene, am more convinced than ever that Tom Welling would be 1,000 times better in the suit than Routh. Tom has inhabited the character so well in 20-plus episodes for seven years, while Routh has a whole two-and-a-half hours with few lines and little action. We know Welling can do a FAR better job.
Warner Bros. needs to make Welling an offer he can't refuse and put him in the cape. And that cape needs to be bright red and cloth, not a dried-blood colored Fruit Roll-up. The costume colors and the tone need to match the comics -- bright and vivid. Neither of those should hinder a good filmmaker from having an entertaining movie filled with great conflict, action, humor and heart. Jon Favreau proved that with "Iron Man." Every time I saw the flight scenes in that movie, I thought, "THAT'S the kind of fun Superman should have had."
The lesson WB needs to learn from "The Dark Knight" is that staying true to the comic-book source material is the best course of action.

[TW4S]

On October 16th, 2001, Tom Welling became this generation's man of steel. Since that day, the epic superman television show "Smallville" has continued to be a new cornerstone for the Superman legend. Fans around the world already acknowledge the incredible talent and dedication that Tom Welling has given to the show and its fans for the last eight years, and now its time to reach that next step. The WB has announced that they will reboot their Superman franchise and now is the time to act and promote a dream that started back in 2001. It is time to see Tom Welling take on the final pieces of this iconic role and don the cape and tights of earth's mightiest hero, Superman!

Sign the petition: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/tomwelling4supes

[S. Parker]

Brandon Routh's perfomance in SR was wooden and as far as being an homage to CR fell sadly short of it's goal. I do not want a return of Brandon Routh to the role. I don't believe that giving him a second chance would make his lackluster performance any better. Even putting the traditional suit on him wouldn't change that sad fact.

I believe that Tom Welling would be best suited to the role. He has had seven and a half years experience portraying not only Clark Kent, but can use the special effects convincinglly when using Superpowers. Even though he has never donned the suit he still is far more convincing as Superman.

[S. Parker]

Brandon Routh's perfomance in SR was wooden and as far as being an homage to CR fell sadly short of it's goal. I do not want a return of Brandon Routh to the role. I don't believe that giving him a second chance would make his lackluster performance any better. Even putting the traditional suit on him wouldn't change that sad fact.

I believe that Tom Welling would be best suited to the role. He has had seven and a half years experience portraying not only Clark Kent, but can use the special effects convincinglly when using Superpowers. Even though he has never donned the suit he still is far more convincing as Superman.

[S. Parker]

Brandon Routh's perfomance in SR was wooden and as far as being an homage to CR fell sadly short of it's goal. I do not want a return of Brandon Routh to the role. I don't believe that giving him a second chance would make his lackluster performance any better. Even putting the traditional suit on him wouldn't change that sad fact.

I believe that Tom Welling would be best suited to the role. He has had seven and a half years experience portraying not only Clark Kent, but can use the special effects convincinglly when using Superpowers. Even though he has never donned the suit he still is far more convincing as Superman.

[Cinnamon]

After watiching Superman Returns many times I think the scripts were lacking in the least for Superman/Clark. Did anyone count how many lines Brandon Routh had? That can maybe be due the fact there wasn't enough action as some claim. What I didn't understand is why Clark sat around at the newpapers waitng for everyone else to find out what happen. Why didn't Superman seek Lex out once he found he was out? Why didn't he go looking for his crystals that Lex stole? Also why did he just sit around when Lois dissapeared? Him having a son kind of wasn't something I would of wanted to see but then again if he was to have one could he actually raise a child being superman and everyone else knowing he had a child? I am thinking it might be better to have a child this way so that child can grow up a somewhat normal life and not have to be harrassed. There is a part that I am not sure of is weather Lois forgot she slept with him or not? Does Richard know or not know who Jason belongs too? There was a lot eye contact that you read into him knowing and to me that would be the best way to raise this child but Bryan Singer needs to confrim that I would think for I am assuming here.

I Loved Brandon Routh playing him, as for Tom Welling playing him in the upcoming reboot I am in debate for he does play a good Superman on Smallville but I do know when they change actors on squels a percent of movies I seen flap because of this. I can give you long list too. That is why spiderman, Harry Potter, Lord of Rings has done so good, etc. is Why after the first Batmans I & II that the third one flapped etc until...........I seen Batman Begins on DVD that I realized it was restart so I did go to the second one but mainly due to Heath Ledger.

As for Batman making it so big................ Hello Everybody anybody who loved Heath Ledger went to see this for this was one of his last movies he did. so is WB stupid enough to not see that if he hadn't died that movie would been just like the last one they made. I can honestly say Heath Ledger was one of the best actors for his times. I even seen this movie because of of HIM and believe I don't go to the movies that much as it now.

[Amber]

If I remember correctly, the whole purpose of this was to demonstrate and oximoron. Here you have va man, who is supposed to be from anther planet, who lives here all by his loans ome self. It just a little Ironice. He could fust refinance his life and purchase a new one. I don't know, just personal opinon I guess.

[Paul]

Charles said,
"Can anyone please explain what NEW element Singer added to Superman that's worth following up?"

Sure. In fact, Singer broke new ground with SR- there are two major and subtle giant bits that Singer added that aren't readily transparent on the surface:

#1: I thought he made the character more 'relevant' for today's dark world without being inconsistent to the character's constant insistence to try to be optimistic and look at the brighter side of things.

I thought he did that by showing a character that could be perceived as a naive and cheerful character with no problems on the surface nowadays as someone with layers of sadness underneath for the world (something that a lot of fans couldn't stand in the film, I know- to me, it made it more sophisticated than even the comics- )- and more than a bit lonely-- and was still vulnerable in the sense that even he could have a heartache for where he came from, enough so that he would be compelled to investigate any signs of possible life when he thought maybe parts of Krypton survived.

By showing that the guy who seemed invulnerable still had plenty of personal vulnerabilities as well, he didn't contradict the character's optimistic sunny side, but that he was capable of personal pain underneath it all, just like any other moviegoer looking for a character to relate to (and look up to at the same time).

#2:The son is a giant creative leap forward towards Superman's character development, that came at the tail end. Having Superman have a role as a parent who has to give up his own son in a way is far more interesting (imo) than the official comics that has Superman married to Lois- so, having a kid definitely is breaking new creative ground for Superman in a dramatic sense, just as having Superman revealed to Lois in SII or losing his powers and being human (although not for long) broke some new creative ground for Supes in the original two films.

Where the movie lacked, everyone pretty much agreed: action, and Singer's already alluded to that he was going to solve that comfortably in the second, but needed the first to re-set up the universe, so to speak. It's just good storytelling. Make us care about the characters first, before going all action.... worked for Xmen 1 and X2...

Anyhow, of course we can all have differing opinions on SR- I just have to point out where I think that the idea that Singer's film wasn't trying to break new ground is a bit off--- he did break new ground in the dramatic sense with Superman's personal life, even if he didn't do the whole 're-inventing/reboot' thing that Abrams apparently wants to do.

Anyone can do something new and flashy--- but to fight to retain the basic elements of what was done right in the first place (the good stuff from the Donner films) and move on, was a lot tougher to do, and I think even if you hated the film,
I think Singer DID try to take it to the next level, but definitely I think he always knew that SR was only the first step to it, but an important one to take.

Is SR perfect? No. But it has some perfect scenes that outshine the weaker parts, just as I think STM does, in my opinion.

Yeah, I like my Superman a little flawed, and not soo sure of what to do ALL the time. I'm in favor of his humanization. I guess that's why I like the alienation aspect in SR so much because it made him more realistic and relatable. Yeah, I know some people say that he is not supposed to be 'relatable' but inspiring. And I say, why can't we have both? I think SR was a good example of that, at least for me. In SR, Superman was, I think, the godliest Superman ever, and very inspiring, but at the same time he was the most human so far. It worked for me really well, but then, prior to watching SR I had never openned a comicbook, so I had no idea of that Superman. Now I have, and I really like some of the stories, but I can also say that the movies Superman is my favorite depiction of the character so far. Yes, the Donner/Singer Superman is certainly very human, but he is also very godly, inspiring, selfless (most of the time.. ), very heroic, and caring for humanity. I also LOVE the Christ allegories in this story, it totally fits the character, and it elevates him above from the rest of the other superheroes. This Superman is mythic, epic and classic. I love it. But I want more!! I REALLY wanted to see more of Superman as a father. I think it has so much potential to be a very compelling and epic storyline, and a true classic in the history of cinema.

*sigh* Warner Brothers are just don't understand this character.

They should just greenlight the sequel. I loved that SR tried to pay homage to the past. Reusing the Williams' themes, the art deco Fleischer environment and wardrobe, scenes directly from the comic panels and elements of the Kirk Alyn suit really gave the movie a sense of legacy. As in, Superman isn't what one person thinks of him, it's a collection of the ideas and efforts from legions of different people. Sure, they overdid it at times with some of the Donnerisms but come on, those meant the most to Singer, they are arguabbly the most popular, and what Superman movie or TV show hasn't done a throw back to a classic Superman line or moment?

I can't help but feel that a Superman reboot will be modern in all the negative ways. All flash and no substance, rock-influenced soundtrack, cliched character development, obligatory romantic subtext that doesn't go anywhere kind of dreck. A lot of movies today suck, and I think everyone can agree that a lot of the ideas we heard to reboot Superman before Singer came on board were really bad, so I can't really get mad at SR for saying the past had better ideas. I sure wish more straight-up remakes and resurrected franchise movies thought that.