What is the appeal of a grim and realistic Superman?

Recommended Videos

Zombie Badger

New member
Dec 4, 2007
784
0
0
Since watching Man of Steel (which I wasn't a particular fan of) I've been wondering what exactly is the appeal of this attempt to make Superman dark and serious in the vein of the Nolan batman films. I'm not saying that a realistic Superman couldn't be good (that's what Dr. Manhattan was after all) but I've heard a lot of fans of it saying things like 'this is the Superman I've always wanted' and I don't quite understand what the advantages of Superman being realistic are?
 

Soviet Heavy

New member
Jan 22, 2010
12,218
0
0
90s Superman had the same problem. Except he had a santa beard a a gun that made Heavy Weapons Guy ashamed.
 

V da Mighty Taco

New member
Apr 9, 2011
890
0
0
You got to remember that Man of Steel is HIGHLY divisive in terms of who likes it and who doesn't, and that the pointless grittiness is one of the many main complaints by the movie's critics. To many people, there isn't any appeal for a grittier, more Nolan-esque Superman.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
Because Superman is generally criticized for being a goody two-shoes. By making him grim and realistic people probably feel this makes him better/cooler, or something in that nature.
 

Zombie Badger

New member
Dec 4, 2007
784
0
0
V da Mighty Taco said:
You got to remember that Man of Steel is HIGHLY divisive in terms of who likes it and who doesn't, and that the pointless grittiness is one of the many main complaints by the movie's critics. To many people, there isn't any appeal for a grittier, more Nolan-esque Superman.
I know how divisive it is, I want to know why its fans like it.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
Zombie Badger said:
V da Mighty Taco said:
You got to remember that Man of Steel is HIGHLY divisive in terms of who likes it and who doesn't, and that the pointless grittiness is one of the many main complaints by the movie's critics. To many people, there isn't any appeal for a grittier, more Nolan-esque Superman.
I know how divisive it is, I want to know why its fans like it.
Do they? I would imagine they would be the first to complain.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Its not just Superman. WB producers will go to whatever they seems to believe will work, and right now, that is Nolan-verse of everything is realistic and dark. While that works on Batman, it doesn't work in all their properties, but that doesn't mean they won't try it.

The same thing happened in the 90s with comics, when everyone was trying to be subversive and copy Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns. Ironically, 20 years later, they didn't seem to have learned.
 

Glongpre

New member
Jun 11, 2013
1,233
0
0
I think people like things that are more realistic because it is easier to relate. I think that is the most basic reason. Obviously, some people do not want to relate, they want to go to a different place, and so that is why not everyone enjoys realistic depictions of stuff.
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Because of all the best known super heroes that have films made about them, Superman is probably the most fundamentally unrelatable. Batman may be a billionaire who has impossible ninja skills and technology, but he's still just a man whose parents were murdered. Peter Parker may have the strength of ten men and be surrounded by knockout babes everywhere he goes, but he still works at a newspaper for a cranky, abusive boss. Hulk has his anger issues, the X-Men are outsiders who have been cast out because of the way they are and so on. Hell, even Captain America, probably the second blandest goody-shoes character right after Superman has to deal with the fact that everyone he used to know is either dead or dying very soon and he doesn't recognize the world he's awakened in.

Superman has none of that. He's effectively indestructible, immortal, infinitely powerful, handsome, smart, can fly and always has the upper moral hand. He's not so much a character to relate to as an icon and an ideal to strive forward to, and havnig your character be like that from the outset doesn't really lend itself well to a traditional three-act story structure. Maybe that's why making him conflicted and have doubt was what they went with in Man of Steel. Granted, they could have done that less poe-facedly, but I still found the Superman in the movie interesting enough.
 

TakerFoxx

Elite Member
Jan 27, 2011
1,125
0
41
I honestly don't get it either. Superman's like Captain America: he's supposed to be a goody two-shoes boy scout. That's a big chunk of his appeal. And as much as I like anti-heroes, I think it's better that way. Every superhero universe needs at least one person who's super idealistic. There's enough edgy, dark heroes as it is without trying to turn the beacon guys dark as well.
 

HardkorSB

New member
Mar 18, 2010
1,477
0
0
Zombie Badger said:
I've heard a lot of fans of it saying things like 'this is the Superman I've always wanted' and I don't quite understand what the advantages of Superman being realistic are?
Are they really fans or people who don't like Superman and feel that a gritty version is what might make them like him?
Honestly, I think that the re-imagining of Superman wasn't done to please fans but to reach out to people who don't like Superman (and also because the Dark Knight made $1 billion).
I don't like it but not because of the grittiness and realism. I don't like it because of the lack of any likable human-like characters. They are devices to either push the story forward or deliver exposition (but that's the problem with all movies where Nolan was involved with the writing).
The movie also made me feel miserable and you shouldn't feel like that after a Superman movie.

I also think that, as Superman was made more and more powerful, it became harder and harder to write compelling stories involving him.
Superman should have been Thor-level at most in terms of power. Making him able to destroy planets with a single punch is going overboard.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
I'm assuming that the grim and dark Superman is more relatable in today society in a way? I mean these days we got more dark and grim related media ever since 9/11.
I mean Superman being the goody two shoe scout was what the society in the 60's. Also no I ain't saying the 60's Superman is bad as I prefered that Superman meant to repersent all that is good and justice.
I didn't liked Superman Return cos they tried too hard to capture the old Superman which is somewhat outdated in modern time.
 

shootthebandit

New member
May 20, 2009
3,867
0
0
Superman just doesnt suit a serious tone. The nature of his abilities just doesnt work.

Im not a huge fan of superman because hes at the point where he is basically omnipotent with a really obvious weakness.

Other powerful heroes seem to be at least a bit more "balanced" whereas supes is just too overpowered
 

Mike Richards

New member
Nov 28, 2009
389
0
0
To me, it's the old "Good is not the absence of evil, but the ability to choose good over evil" argument. I love Superman existing as this ideal of hope, something to strive for and race behind just like Jor-El said. But in order to have an ideal of hope you need to have a need for hope.

I loved Man of Steel because I felt like it was trying to address a lot of the difficult questions and harsh truths that come along with its premise. We can spend all day debating how well it asked and answered those questions but the important part is it was asking. In the original Superman, which on a whole I also liked, he was simply a good guy who was a hero and saved the world. There isn't anything inherently wrong with being that simple but on average I don't think it's as interesting as a deeper, more challenging read on the character and the situation. Compare that to Man of Steel, which wasn't just about saving the world but was about what he means to the world and what his place in it will be.

I didn't like it because it was 'darker and grittier', I liked it because it felt more honest about the world and people in it, and in a lot of ways I think that was what the spirit of 'darker and grittier' was supposed to mean. It's hard for me not to look at these two visions and think that one of them ignored so much that the other didn't, and I think there's something that rings a bit disingenuous about that.

I definitely don't consider MoS to be a perfect Superman story or the only one I will ever accept, but it gave me a lot of things I had always wanted to see with the character and had never seen anywhere else.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Zombie Badger said:
Since watching Man of Steel (which I wasn't a particular fan of) I've been wondering what exactly is the appeal of this attempt to make Superman dark and serious in the vein of the Nolan batman films.
Asked and answered.

The "dark" batman films made oodles of money and everybody loved them so huggy wuggy much, so the people in Hollywood hills said "well if that made oodles of money, lets make even more oodles and do the exact same with superman" ... so they did.

The fans want it 'cos dark and gritty is far more captivating than kiddies stuff. Compare the George Clooney campy batman with Christian Bale dark batman. It's a guy beating people up to stop crime, that it's a violent thing and when you sugar coat it, it looks and feels crap.

Granted you can't make superman as dark as batman, one is a boy scout who wants to be an icon for hope and the other lurks in the shadows slitting his wrists 'cos his mummy and daddy died. "hey, batman. Superman lost his whole planet and doesn't ***** about it! Grow a pair!"
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Zombie Badger said:
omega 616 said:
The fans want it 'cos dark and gritty is far more captivating than kiddies stuff.
Why is dark and gritty inherently more captivating?
Re-read that my last post and under where it says the word "captivating" is the explanation to that.

To me, it's like the hunger games and battle royale. Hunger games is the PG13 version, with the oh so romantic love triangle and the off screen deaths. Battle royale is the gritty, blood soaked version where 2 people die in the opening explanation of what is going on! Battle royale still has the love thing but it takes a back seat to the true story.

They are both films about young people (and 1 old person) gets put into a "only one walks away" scenario but one has almost no blood or tension and the other has a tone!
 

Zombie Badger

New member
Dec 4, 2007
784
0
0
omega 616 said:
To me, it's like the hunger games and battle royale. Hunger games is the PG13 version, with the oh so romantic love triangle and the off screen deaths. Battle royale is the gritty, blood soaked version where 2 people die in the opening explanation of what is going on! Battle royale still has the love thing but it takes a back seat to the true story.

They are both films about young people (and 1 old person) gets put into a "only one walks away" scenario but one has almost no blood or tension and the other has a tone!
Personally I was more captivated by Catching Fire than I was by BR, largely because I found the characters and social commentary more interesting.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Zombie Badger said:
omega 616 said:
To me, it's like the hunger games and battle royale. Hunger games is the PG13 version, with the oh so romantic love triangle and the off screen deaths. Battle royale is the gritty, blood soaked version where 2 people die in the opening explanation of what is going on! Battle royale still has the love thing but it takes a back seat to the true story.

They are both films about young people (and 1 old person) gets put into a "only one walks away" scenario but one has almost no blood or tension and the other has a tone!
Personally I was more captivated by Catching Fire than I was by BR, largely because I found the characters and social commentary more interesting.
I find the hunger more of a good way to kill an hour or two than an actual good film ... I might watch them again but it's not a "damn, that was a good film!".

Ok, battle royale isn't either but I think it does more with the actual concept than hunger games does. How do you pitch a horror film and get the hunger games? The overall plot to both films is people get stuck on an island/area to kill each other and in one of them almost all the death happens of screen? Imagine that in a Freddy film!

To add another film to this idea of "stuck on an island and only one walks away", the condemned, with stone cold Steve Austin! Gang of death row guys and gals get stuck on an island, the event is televised and the winner gets off death row. That film had heavily implied rape and plenty of death.

3 films based on the same idea and the most popular is kiddie one ... kind of shot my point in the face, didn't I? Anyway, I find grit adds tension, it's more visceral and shocking if you actually see the death and not just hear about it.