Would like to see a superhero movie where the superhero is an actual SUPERhero

[ckriley]

Loved Logan. A lot. Will see it again. But let's be honest. James Mangold has a history of depowering superheroes. And he's not the only one. Sam Raimi did it. Christopher Nolan did it. And while Zack Snyder hasn't done that yet his answer to make a character like Superman more interesting is to make him grim and dark, which Superman is not.

Here's the challenge to writers: make a character that's stupidly OP that can't be killed or even be hurt that much, but still make them fully realized and three dimensional film characters that an audience will care about. Do this without making them emo, losing someone important to them, becoming pregnant, or diluting their powers.

The only time I've really seen this done well on the big screen was 1978's Superman. In that movie, Superman was faced with a choice that trapped him by his word. Get the missile that would destroy the American West Coast and kill the love of his life, or be true to his word and get the missile heading for the East Coast that would kill Ms. Teschmacher's mother.

Now, Richard Donner did a total and complete cop-out by having Superman reverse time to save Lois, thereby invalidating literally everything that happened up to that point (not to mention if he could fly that fast to reverse the Earth's spin, he could've simply gotten both missiles), but the way he initially put Superman in a quandary without neutering him was brilliant.

I would like to see more of this. Even the Avengers focused more on Captain America and Iron Man than Thor and Hulk. It will be interesting to see what they do with Vision and Scarlett Witch, two very powerful characters.

But I would really like to see filmmakers let superheroes be superheroes. You don't have to make them human to be relatable.

 

[Saelune]

Thats boring.

Edit: And it would either be a short movie, or just a series of unrelated events of the hero being a hero. I dont really want to watch a 2 hour montage.

Edit 2: Or it would be Dragon Ball Z. Which tends to be well...boring alot.

 

[Fox12]

That sounds boring.

It also sounds like most Marvel films, so go figure.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err I'm confused? I general view superhores AS superheroes. Ok sure maybe one or two may have done some questionable things like Tony drinking habits before becoming Iroman but hey, kids loved him in real life!

Doesn't Captain America already count or does losing that professor already fail the op requirement?

 

[ckriley]

That sounds boring.

It also sounds like most Marvel films, so go figure.

To do otherwise is lazy writing. Which is what tends to happen in this genre.

Edit: also what's boring to me are humans. If I want to be bored I'll talk to my co-workers.

 

[sageoftruth]

Sounds like One Punch Man, but I don't think One Punch Man is what you're going for. Sounds like you want a straight-up conflict between a god-like hero and a god-like villain without the self-mocking humor.

The problem is, while overpowered heroes can be relatable outside of combat, building tension during the actual fights can be difficult, when the audience doesn't even know what can defeat the hero. If the audience cannot tell when the hero is actually in danger, then there cannot be any real tension during fights. If something actually defeats him, or the villain, the best you'll get from the audience is an "Oh. I guess that was able to kill him. Ok."

One way around this would be to include a third party who is more vulnerable, such as a love interest or the general populace, to give the fight some actual stakes. Another option would be to cast aside stakes and go for pure spectacle, but the the movie would have to be short enough to end before the audience stops being impressed. Otherwise, the grand climax is going to be a snorefest.

In Superman's case, it looks like they went for the vulnerable 3rd party option.

 

[ckriley]

Sounds like One Punch Man, but I don't think One Punch Man is what you're going for. Sounds like you want a straight-up conflict between a god-like hero and a god-like villain without the self-mocking humor.

The problem is, while overpowered heroes can be relatable outside of combat, building tension during the actual fights can be difficult, when the audience doesn't even know what can defeat the hero. If the audience cannot tell when the hero is actually in danger, then there cannot be any real tension during fights. If something actually defeats him, or the villain, the best you'll get from the audience is an "Oh. I guess that was able to kill him. Ok."

One way around this would be to include a third party who is more vulnerable, such as a love interest or the general populace, to give the fight some actual stakes. Another option would be to cast aside stakes and go for pure spectacle, but the the movie would have to be short enough to end before the audience stops being impressed. Otherwise, the grand climax is going to be a snorefest.

In Superman's case, it looks like they went for the vulnerable 3rd party option.

Exactly. The heroes and villains themselves can be god-like. But what they're fighting for could be something wholly human. I've always thought that the secret to good action is not the action itself, but what's at stake and how much you care about the characters.

Like, what if Goku had a little brother or sister that was in danger and he was trying to do everything he could to protect him or her, but the choices he made were tied to the fate of the world. Something like that.

 

[WolfThomas]

Though it doesn't really meant the OP's criteria of Super-all the time I did think Thor threw a lot of Superhero convention away which was great. Thor starts the film and ends it at the same "power-level", he is pretty unstoppable against the Frost Giants and he easily beats the Destroyer and Loki. It's just the period in the middle where he is depowered and learns humility that he has to overcome.

It's not a story about a normal man becoming superhuman. But a superhuman becoming more of a normal man.

 

[Marik2]

Maybe the new animated DC movies are what you're looking for

They're way better than the live action versions

 

[RJ 17]

Now, Richard Donner did a total and complete cop-out by having Superman reverse time to save Lois, thereby invalidating literally everything that happened up to that point (not to mention if he could fly that fast to reverse the Earth's spin, he could've simply gotten both missiles), but the way he initially put Superman in a quandary without neutering him was brilliant.

This example shows why what you're asking for really isn't all that feasible from the start.

As you indeed point out: the predicament of "do the right thing and save countless people" vs "go with my heart and save the woman I love" is a good one...however it is completely negated by the fact that Superman is Superman, and he can literally do whatever the hell he wants.

The technique was used better in The Dark Knight, in which Joker tells Batman that Dent and what's-her-face are both about to be blown up and there's only time to save one of them. However that movie would still fail your qualifications since the Nolan Trilogy humanizes Batman so he's not the "I always win perfectly because I'm Batman" type of character as seen in the comics/animated series.

The point I'm getting at is if you have truly super superheroes, then there can't be any true conflict...because they're superheroes, they always win with a flawless victory. Oh sure, they might get slapped around a bit by a supervillain, but in the end they'll save the day and everything will be perfectly fine, nothing of consequence was lost.

In Superman's case, it looks like they went for the vulnerable 3rd party option.

Exactly. The heroes and villains themselves can be god-like. But what they're fighting for could be something wholly human. I've always thought that the secret to good action is not the action itself, but what's at stake and how much you care about the characters.

Like, what if Goku had a little brother or sister that was in danger and he was trying to do everything he could to protect him or her, but the choices he made were tied to the fate of the world. Something like that.

Even this contingency would fail your test, as the hero would always, inevitably, save the loved one/what-have-you (think of the airport fight in Civil War...yeah, it was a great little bit of action and what-not, however it was clear - and even stated - that they were all pulling their punches...it was the superhero equivalent of having a slap-fight, and as such there were no stakes at all...even the one person who DID get seriously injured was up and walking around by the end of the movie, as such any "damsel in distress" situation would be the same: no stakes at all because the superhero is super so you know they're going to be saved) or else they'd fail your "without getting grim-dark and/or losing someone close to them" rule.

The point that I'm getting at is that what you're asking for is actually impossible considering the rules you've stated. :3

 

[Zen Bard]

And while Zack Snyder hasn't done that yet...

Actually he did exactly that with Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.

Manhattan becomes so powerful, he loses his ability to relate to humanity. So he leaves because he no longer finds Earth interesting.

That was the whole point in the graphic novel. A truly SUPER-powered being would eventually move beyond all the petty human motivations. He wouldn't waste his time saving kittens from trees or reporters who fall out of helicopters.

Snyder captured that beautifully in the film.

Man, I miss pre-hack Zack...

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

-Snippage. Or Snikt-age. Whatever you like

This thread houses the very reason why characters are de-powered or weaker than their written counterparts: No one wants a good powerful character.

It doesn't matter if someone could pen out a good story. Just the idea of an op superhero is instantly boring to people. Good = lame, Evil = interesting.

Something which I never got. Look around in real life. Good is very rare indeed. Evil... or self-centeredness to the point of the detriment of others is shockingly common. To me, that makes Evil and villains completely boring. Because they are just going to their own interests and whatever. That's what we all do already. There's nothing special about it.

It makes Villains as interesting as your neighbor being a greedy dick, but now he can do it with a fleet of robots. So what?

And while Zack Snyder hasn't done that yet...

Actually he did exactly that with Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.

Manhattan becomes so powerful, he loses his ability to relate to humanity. So he leaves because he no longer finds Earth interesting.

That was the whole point in the graphic novel. A truly SUPER-powered being would eventually move beyond all the petty human motivations. He wouldn't waste his time saving kittens from trees or reporters who fall out of helicopters.

Snyder captured that beautifully in the film.

Man, I miss pre-hack Zack...

Respectfully disagree.

Dr. Manhattan is a God now. Compare that with Kryptonians who are blessed with untold powers, but still go through life slave to certain things like we all are. Time, chief among them. Subsistence (they need the yellow sun while we need food).

A human that becomes a God that can revisit any moment in creation and actually change it? Yeah, he'd be done with the world. But you can have heroes that are beyond anything mortal man can come close to and they will still be bonded by shared limitations such as time.

But more so, Ozymandias even states that Dr. Manhattan is just as human as everyone else. He goes to Mars because of fear of harming others with the idea of Cancer (which I never got because if he was so powerful and able to manipulate baseline atomic structures he could... you know, just remove the cancer...). Also, he leaves because Laurie rejects him. He reconnects to Humanity through her.

He's a man uniquely alone. So he doesn't reject humanity per se. He runs from it.

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah, im going to second Dr. Manhattan here. Too bad he was portrayed like a pussy that was too afraid to use his powers for anything.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

A hero who can't be damaged is boring because it's harder to empathize with a character that doesn't feel like a human being, and as Buddha would say, existance is suffering. When a fight comes across as painful and difficult it feels more real and the hero becomes more sympathetic as a result. Look at Logan for an example. You really feel for the character on a whole new level when he can barely regenerate and has an actual hard time fighting, more so than you ever did back when he could regrow any injury in minutes

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

And while Zack Snyder hasn't done that yet...

Actually he did exactly that with Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen.

Manhattan becomes so powerful, he loses his ability to relate to humanity. So he leaves because he no longer finds Earth interesting.

That was the whole point in the graphic novel. A truly SUPER-powered being would eventually move beyond all the petty human motivations. He wouldn't waste his time saving kittens from trees or reporters who fall out of helicopters.

Snyder captured that beautifully in the film.

Man, I miss pre-hack Zack...

It really is a shame. I enjoyed Watchmen, 300, and Sucker Punch (I know that third one is pretty divisive). Now I just wish he'd get the fuck away from the characters I like.

 

[jademunky]

Man, I miss pre-hack Zack...

See now, I wouldn't call him a hack, more of a one-trick-pony. Watchmen was fantastic because it used dark and gloomy aesthetics to tell an inherently gloomy story. The DCU films fail because they use that same style for a film about Superman.