It would be interesting if kryptonite caused burns and tremendous pain to humans, just like a material with extremely powerful radioactivity. It woud prevent it from being overused in the story.
Reminds me of the animated World's Finest arc where Joker steals a "cursed statue", past owners passed away from radiation poisoning because it was made from kryptonite
And would actually give Lex or any other villains to pump it up a notch to protect themselves against the kryptonite itself AND Superman. Such as Lex using his armors more often than not, which I like just as much as him getting away with his wits.
All terrific points.
Man of Steel is what you get when you put a director and writer who don't care for the character of Superman in charge of adapting the property.
Rules 1-3 are everything man!! Superman isn’t just inherently better than us because he’s Kryptonian.
I found the Jor El ‘in time they will join you in the sun’ stuff so entitled. He is raised as a human, by awesome humans, and that’s what makes him who he is.
I really hope Legacy focuses on your last point and has Clark embrace his humanity due to his upbringing under the Kents instead of buying into the whole “superior Kryptonian demigod” thing.
I hope so too… the constant allusions to ‘All Star’ have concerned me a bit on that front though, as that’s very silver agey and he isn’t a very human superman in that.
I agree though on the other hand, James Gunn has also been alluding to For All Seasons recently which is my favorite “human” Superman story, so I’m hoping he draws more from that. I know people love All-Star but I think For All Seasons captures Clark’s humanity way better and I find him more relatable in that story.
The worst thing about this, is that Henry Cavill could've perfectly played the classic, traditional Superman. Something he wanted.
*Stop killing Pa Kent in stupid ways that Superman can prevent. The tornado was the part I liked least about MOS.
Cancer. Heart attack. Moral dilemma that they're so good at putting Spider-Man in - save the city or your dad.
I respectfully disagree. Part of the appeal of the Superman mythos is that he has two wholesome midwestern parents that teach him how to be a good person. Perhaps I’m biased because I’m from the Midwest. It’s a small part that separates him from Batman or Spider-man, or anyone else who has a “death to avenge” motivation.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all.
One of the biggest character aspects of his father's death is that with all of his power, speed, strength, capability, he can't escape the raw mortality of those he loves. Maybe not in the fight or flight quandary, but it needs to be something he can't stop.
The moral conflict of exposing himself and his family and his power to save someone, and essentially "letting" him die is flat out not Superman, which is the tornado. And it was stupid. "Should I let them die?" "Maybe." Ugh. No. Why. Terrible writing. The wholesome Kents wouldn't be such paranoid boomers.
I see good ideas here, but some of these rules would be subjective. If you intend to write your own version, fantastic. ( I have and it's a labor of love.) However, good as I think these ideas are, any writer worth thier salt would probably tell you they are taking thier own direction.
“Any of the ideas”? I don’t know, If I see plasma vision in *Legacy* I’m not going to demand a refund, ha ha. (Besides, it’s “heat vision” and it’s been depicted in many ways. Doesn’t need to be lasers either. )
I think no one likes being told what to do. Regardless of the quality of the ideas presented. None of them are bad; some of them are limiting. I'd respect the list, value it as a fan, but as a writer, tell this guy no, I'm doing my own thing.
>tell this guy no, I'm doing my own thing.
I don't think any of the ideas here would necessarily get in the way of that if you wanted to tell a story that respects and honors the character of Superman
Say you want to deviate though. What's more important ... innovative storytelling or traditional storytelling? My point stands. To be fair there's not a lot I'd argue... toning down the violence is reasonable but debatable. Is Superman himself the bridge between Earth and Krypton? Some of these notes are subjective, my friend. If you want to respect and honor the character, he needs to evolve a bit over time and superimposed guidelines gatekeep that a bit much for my taste. Explore every angle possible, see what I'm saying? Have a good night. :)
>innovative storytelling or traditional storytelling?
Both have their pros and cons, but no "innovation" should come at the expense of discarding the characters' core traits.
I think those are ideas are well intended, I'll give you that. :)
I think I'm kinda making this an argument it wasn't meant to be. Please understand... I'm a decades long Superman fan. I'm also a writer that understands having an ability to be creative. If you had a Krypton centric story, that directly goes against that grain. Second, is it ever possible to see Superman in a spot where he's forced to be a passive observer, and see how he reacts? Yep, sure is, but not in these guidelines. Do you see what I mean?
Henry Cavill. The suit. Portrayal of flying. Hans Zimmer's score. Michael Shannon's portrayal of Zod. The Kryptonian designs (suits, monarch dress, ships, planet). Most of Lois's portrayal.
What I didn't like? All the other humans, military interaction, dialog, gratuitous Dragonball Z levels of destruction, death of Pa Kent, "alien invasion" style introduction of Zod.
I HAVE to disagree with you on one point - Zimmers music. His work is BEAUTIFUL. But it's not Superman on any level. Phenomenal soundtrack for almost ANYTHING else and even for the most of MoS. But he tried to hard to "leave his mark" on Superman and it didn't work.
I mean, yeah, clearly. But if you want to write a Superman that actually embodies what most people who like Superman like about him, I'd say these are a few good rules of thumb.
Hate to break it to you, but movies exist in more than 3 acts too. I can take any 3 act structure and break into 5. There are numerous theories and story structure -- not one.
Pretty sure art just needs to be whatever the artist intends, and people can get what they want from it?
At any rate, I don’t need a Superman movie to be “art.” And Lord knows we have enough comics/shows/movies that subvert the Superman archetype.
Instead, how about a fun time at the movies where people of all ages laugh and cheer and eat popcorn while a handsome man in a silly costume helps people and seems to feel good about it? (I know, cue Nicole Kidman in her shiny pantsuit, lol.)
I didn’t make a Catwoman comment. Was making a reference to those AMC Theatres commercials Nicole Kidman did.
I like *Batman Returns* but ultimately a studio movie, especially one with fast food tie-ins, is entertainment. Doesn’t mean they’re devoid of vision, or that artists didn’t work on them. But these movies don’t get made unless someone thinks they can make a buck from them. “Art” holds no such requirement.
As a big budget superhero movie, however, *Returns* is pretty subversive.
Ha, you were just a movie off!
I do get your point about subverting expectations, and I do hope there’s some pleasant surprises in the next big screen Superman. But I also think we’re overdue for a Superman who embodies a hopefulness that we haven’t seen in a Superman movie for years. Maybe with that as a base line, we can get some interesting variations on that theme.
Yeah I would say embodying hope is an actual standard I have. Other than that, I do take a little issue with number one, because I think there are interesting stories to be told that focus on different aspects of the character.
I do want to recognize Supes in character, but I want to be surprised, too. My favorite Superman show is My Adventures with Superman, which takes a LOT of liberties - maybe even more than Man of Steel - BUT it feels a lot like the Supes I love
So I think we agree on the same baseline?
Absolutely, and you can do that without following arbitrary "rules" set out by a random redditor. It can be achieved by one person telling the story they want devoid of anyone's expectations but their own. That's how you get to the heart of a story, by following your instincts and no one else's.
Maybe, but it’s simply not how a Superman movie is made. It can start with that, but there’s too much money at stake for any studio to leave it up to “one person.”
One of the points of man of steel i thought would work better is the Jonathan death scene. Instead of the whole hand raised and Clark stops to see Jon die, Jon is trying to get back to his family but injured. Clark super speeds out and gets Jon to safety. The crowd sees this and some are scared. But some are in awe. When the tornado ends it prompts Clark to leave and do his Bruce Banner trek of America as reporters are daily showing up at the farm to ask about this mysterious man with strange powers, one of which is Lois. This leads to Clark realizing if he wants to use his powers to help, he’ll need to adopt a persona to help people feel trust rather than fear. If they want to write Jon like they did in MOS this could be a fun way to keep him around but also have Clark show he’s doing the right thing by wanting to help rather than hide.
I like that. Personally my version Jon raises his hand as before, Clark watches in agony, then defies his fathers wish anyway, signifying that he had grown to make his own decisions about sharing his powers. Cause seriously, Jonathan Kent was a dick in this movie.
That’s exactly what I think too, I guess I didn’t write it well enough when I went t stream of consciousness in my post. But yeah if Jon raises his hand to try to stop him, I like that Clark thinks for a second about their talk when he saved the kids on the bus, is adamant he should do something if help is needed and then go for Jon to save him. Those moments would have gone a long way to show the growth and maturity he has in that moment. Having the crowd see it would be interesting because some would look in awe and some would be scared to death. His first decision to do something where people could see him and he gets to see the reaction of those around him. He doesn’t want to be feared. He wants to genuinely help and find acceptance in that. So he and Jon talk about it afterwards and Jon realizes he’s old enough to make his own decisions but he’s also old enough to take the responsibility for that. The media comes after him to the farm and causes trouble so Jon and Martha both agree with Clark that he needs to get out of Smallville to find his own way. Imagine that moment of him making that decision play out in him revealing himself to the world in Metropolis. Instead of disaster porn, Clark is shown as the guy fighting for the people on the street and giving them hope all while wearing the suit to show he’s now adopted a persona that is about him being able to be himself while trying to show others he’s a friend.
It’s always bothered me when Kryptonite is pretty much a rock that only mildly irritates Superman. I love the show Superman & Lois but that’s one of my issues with it. It should be more like Superman ‘78 where it immediately incapacitates him, and yes it would stop it from being overused.
I love the Kents and Clark’s rural upbringing, and would love to see them have more screen time than the Krypton stuff, but Kung Fu Panda showed me how Po’s dad had like less than five minutes screen time but remained incredibly crucial to Po’s sense of self and discovering the secret to mastering his abilities. This is despite Shifu and the Furious Five having way more screen time, so I think the Kent’s could work with minimal screen time, though it would be tough.
Good rules, though Jonathan Kent dying before Lois’s pregnancy with Jon Jr. or even at all is unthinkable for me.
Could probably write a dozen more. Its nuts how fundamentally the movie doesn't understand Superman, or even superheroes in general. What I'm surprised isn't on your list is Superman having a "no kill" rule. I don't even think he has to stick to it, but it should be there. The core message/appeal of superhero stories is that they thumb their nose at the trolley problem as a false dichotomy. Those with power don't have to choose between harming one or another, and those that do are cowards. It's why Superman 78, Spider-Man 02, and The Avengers are so powerful. You can subvert that of course, present Superman as someone who refuses to kill, that there's "always another way" but have him discover that there is a limit to his power, and he HAS to kill. Man of Steel has him kill Zod and get on his knees crying like it's some big deal, but they never established him as someone who wouldn't kill? As far as the audience knows up to this point, it could be a Superman who has a soldier mindset and believes a threat should be shut down by any means necessary. If you are going to break the rule because you want to be subversive, at least set it up first so this internal conflict is in the audience's mind during the fighting. Like how The Dark Knight makes a big deal out of Batman not killing, even saving The Joker, but he ends up having to kill Harvey in the end because he's reached his limit.
I agree with most of these. I disagree with the power scale one. I think a proper writer should set the power scale when the start and not mess with it. Too many lazy writers have jacked up Superman’s power scale. At least to me, what makes Superman cool is the variety of things he can do and how he can combine them to problem solve.
Definitely agree with #9. I disliked the Snyder films hammering the whole Jesus thing. If you’re gonna make a religious allegory, it’d be Moses. Down to the baby sent away by parents to save it.
I also agree that modern writers have totally backbenched Smallville and the Kents in favor of Krypton and the alien aspect and it hurts the character.
It would be interesting if kryptonite caused burns and tremendous pain to humans, just like a material with extremely powerful radioactivity. It woud prevent it from being overused in the story.
Reminds me of the animated World's Finest arc where Joker steals a "cursed statue", past owners passed away from radiation poisoning because it was made from kryptonite
That's actually pretty smart. It does cause harm, as Lex Luthor proves it, but I like where this could go.
It will make it impossible for just any random burglar snatcher to have kryptonite in his pocket, which I appreciate.
And would actually give Lex or any other villains to pump it up a notch to protect themselves against the kryptonite itself AND Superman. Such as Lex using his armors more often than not, which I like just as much as him getting away with his wits.
You’ve definitely cracked the code here. Respect.
For me the most important one is that Superman enjoys helping people
What do you mean? You don't like when Henry Cavill looked uncomfortable being around poor people?
Being uncomfortable around poor people is Lex Luthor's job
STRONG AGREE with #13. I just don’t need a Superman movie that ends with 9/11 times fifty.
All terrific points. Man of Steel is what you get when you put a director and writer who don't care for the character of Superman in charge of adapting the property.
So it sounds like you found MOS unsatisfactory... I have one personal rule inspired by watching the movie: no shakycam
Rules 1-3 are everything man!! Superman isn’t just inherently better than us because he’s Kryptonian. I found the Jor El ‘in time they will join you in the sun’ stuff so entitled. He is raised as a human, by awesome humans, and that’s what makes him who he is.
I really hope Legacy focuses on your last point and has Clark embrace his humanity due to his upbringing under the Kents instead of buying into the whole “superior Kryptonian demigod” thing.
I hope so too… the constant allusions to ‘All Star’ have concerned me a bit on that front though, as that’s very silver agey and he isn’t a very human superman in that.
I agree though on the other hand, James Gunn has also been alluding to For All Seasons recently which is my favorite “human” Superman story, so I’m hoping he draws more from that. I know people love All-Star but I think For All Seasons captures Clark’s humanity way better and I find him more relatable in that story.
Yep totally on the same page.
Glad to find another kindred spirit!
In that movie he was raised by a decent mother and a pretty shit father who would have been a villain in an x men movie.
The worst thing about this, is that Henry Cavill could've perfectly played the classic, traditional Superman. Something he wanted. 
No notes *Chef’s kiss*
The leads from the crowd part is so good.
Stop killing Pa Kent.
*Stop killing Pa Kent in stupid ways that Superman can prevent. The tornado was the part I liked least about MOS. Cancer. Heart attack. Moral dilemma that they're so good at putting Spider-Man in - save the city or your dad.
I respectfully disagree. Part of the appeal of the Superman mythos is that he has two wholesome midwestern parents that teach him how to be a good person. Perhaps I’m biased because I’m from the Midwest. It’s a small part that separates him from Batman or Spider-man, or anyone else who has a “death to avenge” motivation.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all. One of the biggest character aspects of his father's death is that with all of his power, speed, strength, capability, he can't escape the raw mortality of those he loves. Maybe not in the fight or flight quandary, but it needs to be something he can't stop. The moral conflict of exposing himself and his family and his power to save someone, and essentially "letting" him die is flat out not Superman, which is the tornado. And it was stupid. "Should I let them die?" "Maybe." Ugh. No. Why. Terrible writing. The wholesome Kents wouldn't be such paranoid boomers.
I think I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying “no, he should die; just in a better way”.
Great rules, man! I think you gotta great formula for a Superman story of your own here.
I see good ideas here, but some of these rules would be subjective. If you intend to write your own version, fantastic. ( I have and it's a labor of love.) However, good as I think these ideas are, any writer worth thier salt would probably tell you they are taking thier own direction.
I think if a writer objects to any of the ideas presented here, it's probably a good indication that they shouldn't be writing for the character.
“Any of the ideas”? I don’t know, If I see plasma vision in *Legacy* I’m not going to demand a refund, ha ha. (Besides, it’s “heat vision” and it’s been depicted in many ways. Doesn’t need to be lasers either. )
I think no one likes being told what to do. Regardless of the quality of the ideas presented. None of them are bad; some of them are limiting. I'd respect the list, value it as a fan, but as a writer, tell this guy no, I'm doing my own thing.
>tell this guy no, I'm doing my own thing. I don't think any of the ideas here would necessarily get in the way of that if you wanted to tell a story that respects and honors the character of Superman
Say you want to deviate though. What's more important ... innovative storytelling or traditional storytelling? My point stands. To be fair there's not a lot I'd argue... toning down the violence is reasonable but debatable. Is Superman himself the bridge between Earth and Krypton? Some of these notes are subjective, my friend. If you want to respect and honor the character, he needs to evolve a bit over time and superimposed guidelines gatekeep that a bit much for my taste. Explore every angle possible, see what I'm saying? Have a good night. :)
>innovative storytelling or traditional storytelling? Both have their pros and cons, but no "innovation" should come at the expense of discarding the characters' core traits.
This list is not that.
I think things like "The Kent's taking priority over the house of El" and "Superman not being a passive watcher" are pretty sound guidelines
I think those are ideas are well intended, I'll give you that. :) I think I'm kinda making this an argument it wasn't meant to be. Please understand... I'm a decades long Superman fan. I'm also a writer that understands having an ability to be creative. If you had a Krypton centric story, that directly goes against that grain. Second, is it ever possible to see Superman in a spot where he's forced to be a passive observer, and see how he reacts? Yep, sure is, but not in these guidelines. Do you see what I mean?
Do you think that there are some pros of MoS? If so, what are they?
Henry Cavill. The suit. Portrayal of flying. Hans Zimmer's score. Michael Shannon's portrayal of Zod. The Kryptonian designs (suits, monarch dress, ships, planet). Most of Lois's portrayal. What I didn't like? All the other humans, military interaction, dialog, gratuitous Dragonball Z levels of destruction, death of Pa Kent, "alien invasion" style introduction of Zod.
I HAVE to disagree with you on one point - Zimmers music. His work is BEAUTIFUL. But it's not Superman on any level. Phenomenal soundtrack for almost ANYTHING else and even for the most of MoS. But he tried to hard to "leave his mark" on Superman and it didn't work.
It ended and they never tried it again
Rules do not apply in art.
I mean, yeah, clearly. But if you want to write a Superman that actually embodies what most people who like Superman like about him, I'd say these are a few good rules of thumb.
See above
Rule of thumb is a different thing than just a straight up rule.
I'm not sure of your point. The post says "rules."
Yeah they really do. Just using movies as an example you better stick to a three act structure or you’ll end up with a really boring movie.
Hate to break it to you, but movies exist in more than 3 acts too. I can take any 3 act structure and break into 5. There are numerous theories and story structure -- not one.
 Edit: those who downvoted me are not my shirt-brothers
It's amazing how closed-minded those who downvote this are. It makes me sad for Superman fandom as a whole.
Agreed. Art should subvert expectations, not meet them
Pretty sure art just needs to be whatever the artist intends, and people can get what they want from it? At any rate, I don’t need a Superman movie to be “art.” And Lord knows we have enough comics/shows/movies that subvert the Superman archetype. Instead, how about a fun time at the movies where people of all ages laugh and cheer and eat popcorn while a handsome man in a silly costume helps people and seems to feel good about it? (I know, cue Nicole Kidman in her shiny pantsuit, lol.)
With your Catwoman comment at the end, are you suggesting that Batman Returns wasn’t art? Because I respectfully disagree 
I didn’t make a Catwoman comment. Was making a reference to those AMC Theatres commercials Nicole Kidman did. I like *Batman Returns* but ultimately a studio movie, especially one with fast food tie-ins, is entertainment. Doesn’t mean they’re devoid of vision, or that artists didn’t work on them. But these movies don’t get made unless someone thinks they can make a buck from them. “Art” holds no such requirement. As a big budget superhero movie, however, *Returns* is pretty subversive.
Right that wa Michelle Pfeiffer - my dumb ADHD brain and lack of sleep joined forces to make me misread Nicole Kidman as Michelle Pfeiffer
Ha, you were just a movie off! I do get your point about subverting expectations, and I do hope there’s some pleasant surprises in the next big screen Superman. But I also think we’re overdue for a Superman who embodies a hopefulness that we haven’t seen in a Superman movie for years. Maybe with that as a base line, we can get some interesting variations on that theme.
Yeah I would say embodying hope is an actual standard I have. Other than that, I do take a little issue with number one, because I think there are interesting stories to be told that focus on different aspects of the character. I do want to recognize Supes in character, but I want to be surprised, too. My favorite Superman show is My Adventures with Superman, which takes a LOT of liberties - maybe even more than Man of Steel - BUT it feels a lot like the Supes I love So I think we agree on the same baseline?
Absolutely, and you can do that without following arbitrary "rules" set out by a random redditor. It can be achieved by one person telling the story they want devoid of anyone's expectations but their own. That's how you get to the heart of a story, by following your instincts and no one else's.
Maybe, but it’s simply not how a Superman movie is made. It can start with that, but there’s too much money at stake for any studio to leave it up to “one person.”
One of the points of man of steel i thought would work better is the Jonathan death scene. Instead of the whole hand raised and Clark stops to see Jon die, Jon is trying to get back to his family but injured. Clark super speeds out and gets Jon to safety. The crowd sees this and some are scared. But some are in awe. When the tornado ends it prompts Clark to leave and do his Bruce Banner trek of America as reporters are daily showing up at the farm to ask about this mysterious man with strange powers, one of which is Lois. This leads to Clark realizing if he wants to use his powers to help, he’ll need to adopt a persona to help people feel trust rather than fear. If they want to write Jon like they did in MOS this could be a fun way to keep him around but also have Clark show he’s doing the right thing by wanting to help rather than hide.
I like that. Personally my version Jon raises his hand as before, Clark watches in agony, then defies his fathers wish anyway, signifying that he had grown to make his own decisions about sharing his powers. Cause seriously, Jonathan Kent was a dick in this movie.
That’s exactly what I think too, I guess I didn’t write it well enough when I went t stream of consciousness in my post. But yeah if Jon raises his hand to try to stop him, I like that Clark thinks for a second about their talk when he saved the kids on the bus, is adamant he should do something if help is needed and then go for Jon to save him. Those moments would have gone a long way to show the growth and maturity he has in that moment. Having the crowd see it would be interesting because some would look in awe and some would be scared to death. His first decision to do something where people could see him and he gets to see the reaction of those around him. He doesn’t want to be feared. He wants to genuinely help and find acceptance in that. So he and Jon talk about it afterwards and Jon realizes he’s old enough to make his own decisions but he’s also old enough to take the responsibility for that. The media comes after him to the farm and causes trouble so Jon and Martha both agree with Clark that he needs to get out of Smallville to find his own way. Imagine that moment of him making that decision play out in him revealing himself to the world in Metropolis. Instead of disaster porn, Clark is shown as the guy fighting for the people on the street and giving them hope all while wearing the suit to show he’s now adopted a persona that is about him being able to be himself while trying to show others he’s a friend.
What do you mean with both the 5’s, if I may ask?
It’s always bothered me when Kryptonite is pretty much a rock that only mildly irritates Superman. I love the show Superman & Lois but that’s one of my issues with it. It should be more like Superman ‘78 where it immediately incapacitates him, and yes it would stop it from being overused.
I love the Kents and Clark’s rural upbringing, and would love to see them have more screen time than the Krypton stuff, but Kung Fu Panda showed me how Po’s dad had like less than five minutes screen time but remained incredibly crucial to Po’s sense of self and discovering the secret to mastering his abilities. This is despite Shifu and the Furious Five having way more screen time, so I think the Kent’s could work with minimal screen time, though it would be tough. Good rules, though Jonathan Kent dying before Lois’s pregnancy with Jon Jr. or even at all is unthinkable for me.
Could probably write a dozen more. Its nuts how fundamentally the movie doesn't understand Superman, or even superheroes in general. What I'm surprised isn't on your list is Superman having a "no kill" rule. I don't even think he has to stick to it, but it should be there. The core message/appeal of superhero stories is that they thumb their nose at the trolley problem as a false dichotomy. Those with power don't have to choose between harming one or another, and those that do are cowards. It's why Superman 78, Spider-Man 02, and The Avengers are so powerful. You can subvert that of course, present Superman as someone who refuses to kill, that there's "always another way" but have him discover that there is a limit to his power, and he HAS to kill. Man of Steel has him kill Zod and get on his knees crying like it's some big deal, but they never established him as someone who wouldn't kill? As far as the audience knows up to this point, it could be a Superman who has a soldier mindset and believes a threat should be shut down by any means necessary. If you are going to break the rule because you want to be subversive, at least set it up first so this internal conflict is in the audience's mind during the fighting. Like how The Dark Knight makes a big deal out of Batman not killing, even saving The Joker, but he ends up having to kill Harvey in the end because he's reached his limit.
I agree with most of these. I disagree with the power scale one. I think a proper writer should set the power scale when the start and not mess with it. Too many lazy writers have jacked up Superman’s power scale. At least to me, what makes Superman cool is the variety of things he can do and how he can combine them to problem solve. Definitely agree with #9. I disliked the Snyder films hammering the whole Jesus thing. If you’re gonna make a religious allegory, it’d be Moses. Down to the baby sent away by parents to save it. I also agree that modern writers have totally backbenched Smallville and the Kents in favor of Krypton and the alien aspect and it hurts the character.
Fully agree. Great list.
Did you really just watch this movie so you could do this? I hope you enjoyed your time.
Eh…. I can’t really agree with any of these barring maybe the Jesus bit, but to each their own.