by Ryan Gowland

Since he was introduced in Action Comics #1 in 1938, Superman has crossed over from comic books to appear in four television shows, several cartoons, two movie serials and six live-action movies, with the end result being that you don’t have to be a comic book fan to know the basic tenets of Superman’s story. However, Superman’s path in Hollywood hasn’t always been rosy. Sure, the latest Superman movie, Man of Steel, has succeeded in reviving the movie franchise in a way that the 2006 reboot Superman Returns, well, didn’t, but for every Man of Steel success story, there has been decades of failed attempts and expensive development. It begs the question, what is so difficult about making Superman movies?

Henry Cavill as Clark Kent / Kal-El in Man of Steel

There’s no easy answer to that question. Its easy to blame studio Warner Bros., who, despite their success with Superman on television, have spent 25-plus years trying to make Superman movies with only Superman Returns and Man of Steel to show for it. In order to cease the endless development, Warners backed a creative team that were only ones to successfully translate a DC comics character to the big screen in recent years, a move which has paid off financially. But while Warners finally has a reinvented Superman to capitalize on, fans are left to accept this new depiction of Superman, no matter how they feel about it.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace [ed. note: It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this movie, but it doesn’t look good.]

Development Kryptonite

After 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, a sequel, Superman V, was (surprisingly) put into development back in the early ‘90s in an attempt to continue the Christopher Reeve era. That sequel was abandoned in lieu of the TV show Lois & Clark as Warners bought back the Superman rights from the Salkind family, but found new life by transforming into Superman Lives. Essentially an adaptation of the “Death of Superman” storyline from the comics, Superman Lives saw writers like Kevin Smith and directors like Tim Burton come on board only to have the project reach pre-production (with Nic Cage being paid $20 million for a lead role he would never play) before eventually crumbling like the Kryptonian empire.

After Superman Lives, Warners then moved on to J.J. Abrams, who wrote a reboot script that had director McG attached, until he walked out to direct the Charlie’s Angels sequel (which, in hindsight, was probably not the best career move), so Warners pursued a Batman vs. Superman script from Andrew Kevin Walker and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, which almost made it to production before it was canceled and Abrams script was dug up once more. This time, director Brett Ratner was hired on to direct, but left after failing to find a lead actor and experiencing heated arguments with producer Jon Peters (Smith also had problems with Peters’ requests, publicly citing an action sequence at Superman’s Fortress of Solitude and a third act fight with a giant spider as examples of what Kevin Smith viewed as Peters’ inane requests). McG was then brought back only to leave again, opening the door for Warners to deny Abrams a chance to direct (again, a poor decision in hindsight) and open the door for Singer’s Superman Returns.

Superman Returns

Up until that point, only Richard Donner had found big screen success with Superman, and it’s easy to see why Warners bit on Singer’s attempt to circumvent Superman III and Superman IV and retcon the franchise back to Donner’s era. Warners had already turned to Burton to see if he could have the same success with Superman that he did with Batman, so why not look even further back to the success of the first Superman and Superman II?

Of course, the only problem with Superman Returns was that no one cared for it, a fact even Singer conceded. “I think that Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don’t think that was what people were expecting, “ admitted Singer to THR in 2011.

An important side note to remember is that Superman Returns did, in fact, make money, just not enough for Warners to feel good about it. The studio did greenlight a sequel, with Singer set to direct again, but delays—including the 2007 Writer’s Strike—ended progress on a sequel and eventually Warners decided to reboot the entire franchise (again). So how did Warners finally get Superman to fly once more? They went “dark.”

Superman Returns Promotional Art

A Fresh, Dark Start

Like any reboot, Man of Steel tries to re-establish the character’s origins—mostly in flashback—including an extensive first act on Krypton. This time, audiences saw an angst-ridden Clark Kent who doesn’t know who he is or what his destiny holds instead of the morally upstanding “boy scout” he is both revered and often criticized for being.

“When did ‘boy scout’ become a pejorative term?” asked comic book writer and illustrator George Perez during a Comic-Con panel about Superman in the Post-“Crisis” era last month. “Someone who chooses to do good, shouldn’t that be encouraged?”

Not in the new “dark” era. At least, not right away. Turning Superman away from a confidently assured superhero to a pensive, less certain superhero on the road to self-discovery is precisely what Warners signed off on when director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer brought them the idea for Man of Steel. To their credit, the studio had tried long enough trying to repeat the successes of the past, and with Nolan coming to the end of his Batman trilogy and other DC characters such as Green Lantern faltering at the box office, why not turn Superman over to the one creative team that has successfully translated a DC superhero to the big screen in recent years? Ironically, this was the same mindset that led Warners to hire Burton for Superman Lives, but, considering Nolan and Goyer’s success with the Dark Knight trilogy, was there any reason for Warners to turn them down? With Nolan “godfathering” the movie, Warners had to feel that, after all theses years, they finally had another shot at revitalizing a Superman franchise.

Man of Steel

“Essentially, Christopher Nolan is the greatest thing that ever happened to comic-book movies,” screenwriter Damon Lindelof recently commented to Vulture. “Period. And Christopher Nolan is also the worst thing to ever happen to comic-book movies. He executed it letter-perfect, [in part, because] he took a character like Batman that wants to be grounded and wants to be real.” With Superman, Nolan and Goyer took a similar tact, creating a story that tries it’s best to take the story of a child from another world arriving on Earth with the capability of god-like powers and put it in a context of reality. For some, the results changed what was so enjoyable about Superman in the first place.

“Look, I know everyone involved in Man of Steel went into it with the best of intentions,” wrote Superman: Birthright limited series writer Mark Waid on his Thrillbent blog. “And there were certainly things to like. But there was no triumph to it. None of Superman’s victories in this movie are in any way the kind of stand-up-and-cheer events you’d think necessary in a movie with Superman in it. Did it succeed in what it sent out to do? I think probably so. But what it set out to do, as it turns out, leaves me cold.”

Waid wasn’t alone. “No one gets what’s special about Superman,” said Chronicle screenwriter Max Landis in a video rant about Man of Steel. “He’s not a selfish, post-traumatic sissy who needed his parents shot to death in front of him to understand that you should help people and that crime is wrong and murder is bad…. What’s special about Superman is that he will always make the right choice.”

Man of Steel Concept Art

Or will he? In Man of Steel’s controversial ending, which—if you haven’t seen the movie yet you should probably stop reading now—put Superman in a position where he had to kill his adversary Zod. “Build to that moment of the hard choice,” Waid implored. “Show me, without doubt, that Superman has no other out and do a better job of convincing me that it’s a hard decision to make, and maybe I’ll give it to you.”

Of course, Man of Steel didn’t invent Superman’s brush with killing. It happened in the comics first, but on precious few occasions. In Alan Moore’s Silver Age swansong “Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?” killing is the eventual catalyst for Superman to retire forever, while, in the 1988 issue of Superman #22, Superman kills three evil Kryptonians, prompting the comic book storyline “Exile” where Superman escapes into space to deal with his guilt.

Superman Exile Comic Book Cover

“[“Exile”] is the advantage we had over [Man of Steel] because we had 35 more issues that year to see how this messed him up,” said DC editor Mike Carlin Carlin during the Post-“Crisis” panel. In Man of Steel, however, Superman only gets a moment to regret the action, and, as Superman is essentially still learning how to be Superman, we are left to infer that this may be the moment where he chooses his ethical stance on killing instead of having that from the beginning. Killing isn’t a big deal for Batman, but, for Superman, killing is out of the question. Still, Zod’s death didn’t bother everyone, particularly Adventures of Superman writer Jeff Parker.

“When I think of Superman, I don’t first think ‘he never kills!’” Parker wrote me via email. “I assume he tries everything possible before resorting to something he finds heinous. I don’t mind that the movie would present it as something he found horrible and will avoid at all costs in the future, which I assumed was the point.”

Or, as comic book writer Marv Wolfman said during the Post-“Crisis” panel: “Superman’s not Spider-Man or Batman… His angst is ‘I wish I could do more.’” While Wolfman wasn’t describing the Zod sequence, it does a lot to explain what Superman might have been thinking in that moment. But was it Superman’s thinking that he will never kill again? While Superman is seen as being remorse, the movie turns to making a point about drone strikes and setting up Superman’s role in the new Metropolis, one where the government isn’t sure they trust Superman while Superman gives them no choice in the matter. Fans will have to wait for the recently announced Superman/Batman sequel to find out if killing is indeed something Superman will never do again.

Michael Shannon as General Zod in Man of Steel

The Larger (Budget) Problem

By going “dark,” did Superman lose the quality that makes him Superman? One could argue that by giving Superman a darker history—witnessing the death of his adoptive father and killing Zod—Goyer and Snyder have created a superhero more akin to Batman than the two would typically be in the comics. However, during the Comic-Con announcement of the Superman/Batman sequel, director Zack Snyder had Man of Steel actor Harry Lennix read a line of dialogue from Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, indicating that the sequel will be inspired by the 1986 limited series and capitalize on the conflict that arises from the ideological differences between the two characters.

Using The Dark Knight Returns as a template creates a couple challenges for Snyder and Goyer (Nolan will only executive produce): one is that Superman’s new-found moral high ground will have to be established, while the other is to both present the next iteration of Batman – with Ben Affleck set to replace Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman—and show how his ideology is different from Superman’s. If there’s to be conflict between the two, this is necessary.

Whatever conflict arises between the two heroes, however, eventually they will fight together against a common enemy to save the world. It’s inevitable. And saving the world will be key in the Superman vs. Batman sequel (or whatever it will be called).

“Once you spend more than $100 million on a movie, you have to save the world,” said Lindelof about the current state of writing big-budget studio films. “In the old days, it was just as satisfying that all Superman has to do was basically save Lois from this earthquake in California. It’s almost impossible to, for example, not have a final set piece where the fate of the free world is at stake.”

Gene Hackman and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luther

And who will be that villain? It seems likely that it will be Lex Luthor, since LexCorp was the other Easter egg in Man of Steel, and, on top of that, the character has already been rumored as the movie’s villain. Luthor fits the Nolan mold of being a grounded, semi-realistic villain and, thankfully (at least in terms of blockbuster necessity), usually bent on world domination. No script has been written yet, of course, and decisions on a sequel are a very fluid situation, but Luther is certainly a decision that would only further fan excitement.

And why not keep the fans excited? Fans cheered the Superman/Batman sequel announcement which showed that, finally, Warners was ready to play ball against Marvel’s integrated Cinematic Universe as the Superman/Batman sequel is no doubt a measured move by the studio to prep audiences for an eventual Justice League adaptation. However, the Affleck casting decision may have tempered that excitement, dividing the fanbase and setting off a tidal wave of emotions on social media.

Of course, it wasn’t going to be easy to replace Bale with anyone, and so, instead of entering a drawn-out casting period filled with rumors and fan opinion polls, Warners decided to cast someone right away. No matter how you feel about the decision to cast The Actor That Was Once Daredevil as the Caped Crusader, the decision was a measured one by the studio that had more to do with appeasing Affleck than fans. Affleck reportedly had a good relationship with former studio president Jeff Robinov, who brought Affleck to the studio for The Town and the Oscar-winning Argo, and now that Robinov exited the studio in what reportedly was an ugly divorce, it doesn’t take a Hollywood insider to realize that the Batman casting was a way for the studio to ensure that Affleck and the studio were on good terms. It’s yet another move that seems good for Warners and not the movie itself, because it seems no one has considered that—in terms of arc—both characters might not be ready to meet just yet.

As Man of Steel was essentially an origin story (or a re-origin origin story), Superman is now in the nascent stages of his development as a big screen superhero, not to mention his career as a journalist at the Daily Planet. And last we saw Batman, he had retired to tour European cafes in The Dark Knight Rises. However you felt about Man of Steel, the sequel now has the unenviable task of pushing forward the Superman franchise while simultaneously kickstarting the post-Nolan era of the Batman franchise while putting two of DC’s mainstay superheroes together for the first time on the big screen. While Joss Whedon was able to pull off a similar feat with The Avengers, it’s easy to forget how many were expecting him to fail at that endeavor rather than pull it off. While the Superman/Batman sequel won’t have as many characters to deal with as The Avengers, it will have to build off of a divisive Superman reboot and a Batman trilogy that seemingly came to a close.

For those that didn’t care for the Man of Steel version of Superman or the end of The Dark Knight Rises—there’s no going back. While Superman Returns shut the door years ago, the Donner-era Superman is no more. Like it or not, Superman has killed someone, and there’s no way to change the continuity this time. Like it or not, The Dark Knight trilogy is the model for how Warners will tackle their stable of DC characters. Like it or not, as Warners builds to a potentially larger DC universe on the big screen, it’s Snyder and Goyer who will be in charge of the Last Son of Krypton and the Dark Knight and it is up to them to triumph or to leave audiences cold. The studio has worked for too long to re-establish the Superman franchise and there’s no going back now.

This is not to say that Superman/Batman is doomed to fail. It isn’t. In fact, it’s almost a guarantee that Superman/Batman will be a financial success. Despite all the Affleck casting squabbling and the petitions for his removal, will those same disgruntled fans actually boycott the sequel? We shall see. The question remains, however, whether the timing is right for a Superman and Batman pairing. If the sequel doesn’t work, if audiences either don’t show up or are once again not impressed, or if fans aren’t happy with Affleck as Batman, what then? Do Superman and Batman go into development for another few decades? Or do audiences just cross their fingers for Justice League?

At least the world will be saved.