Character flaws

[mikesaysno]

error\ 9889#2.3

 

[sr71plt]

Seems to me the biggest challenge in making this character live again is not so much about finding the right actor, although of course that is important, as it is about the intrinsic problems of the character itself. Superman has precious few character flaws and that makes for a very dull story.

Hasn't one of the appeals of the Superman mystique always been that, although Superman has no character flaws (which makes him a really boring boy to have at a party), Clark Kent does (and in any remake could be given a whole different personality)?

 

[mikesaysno]

Hasn't one of the appeals of the Superman mystique always been that, although Superman has no character flaws (which makes him a really boring boy to have at a party), Clark Kent does (and in any remake could be given a whole different personality)?

It seems like more of a limitation imposed on his true character...I don't know what the internal flaw would be...It would be hard to say that one has a flaw and the other doesnt since they are same person. But again, the imposition of having to live a double life hasn't got much more to yield in terms of new ideas

 

[sr71plt]

It seems like more of a limitation imposed on his true character...I don't know what the internal flaw would be...It would be hard to say that one has a flaw and the other doesnt since they are same person. But again, the imposition of having to live a double life hasn't got much more to yield in terms of new ideas

*shrug* You posed this as how to make a distinguishing film. Like they've done with Batman, I think their clearest avenue would be to do something creative with the character of Clark Kent. (I fancy him as gay--although that's been done a couple of ways with Batman already. I always did think of Lois Lane as a limp rag. Never could image Superman fucking her.)

 

[Weird Harold]

Seems to me the biggest challenge in making this character live again is not so much about finding the right actor, although of course that is important, as it is about the intrinsic problems of the character itself. Superman has precious few character flaws and that makes for a very dull story.

You sound like a Marvel Comics fan rather than a DC Superheroes fan.

Superman is a classic example of what happens when an author makes a character to powerful or invulnerable. (this is the authors' hangout, after all.)

Superman does have one vulnerability that hasn't been twisted and distorted by Hollywood -- yet. He's not invulnerable to Magic and his most troublesome foe has always been Mr Mxlplx(sp).

Hollywood would probably be more inclined to tinker with another under-utilized character flaw -- Supes is absolutely incapable of resisting a woman withthe Intials L.L. He's had romances of varying intensities with Lana Lang, Lois Lane, Lorelei Lei(sp) and a couple of others over his long career.

As to Supes actually getting it on with most of them Larry Niven wrote a well-known essay about why Supes ain't getting any from any earth girls, no mater how easy they are. there is also a companion piece on why Supergirl ain't getting any from any Earthboys either; or only getting it once anyway.

There are lots of flaws in the Superman Character for Hollywood to exagerate out of proportion without turning him into spiderman or some other angst-ridden Marvel Stupor-hero.

 

[mikesaysno]

eeeeeeeeee

 

[mikesaysno]

llllllllllll

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Maybe Clark Kent needs to carry the cross. Superman is the antithesis of Clark Kent and every man. So load Clark up with some serious shit that he has to deal with as a mortal.

 

[Boota]

I've never liked Superman comics for that very reason. Whenever a story required a way out the creators just gave him a new power. That is far beyond boring. They need to reboot the character, limit his powers, make him deal with human flaws. Lay off the Super and focus on the Man. I'd love to scrap the whole thing and rewrite it for them.

 

[Verdad]

Ugh, more Superman. I thought he was a bore even when I was a kid.

On the other hand, Thor the movie should be out next year. In my book, he and Silver Surfer are two good reasons not to diss Marvel! I don't expect the movie to be better than most comic books transferred on screen, but at least I used to love that character.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm looking forward to the Green Lantern movie myself.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Someone wrote that as kids we were either Superman or Batman fans and there was little crossover between them. I agree. Superman is a complete bore, too stupid to be noble. Batman, on the other hand, is a gem. Human, smart, far from invulnerable while at the same time having a dark, vindictive streak to his own personality, he's much easier to identify with. Forget Adam West's rotten show. When 'Batman' reverted to 'The Batman' a comic became a graphic novel. The weak part is the campy villains!

 

[3113]

Dull? Really?

Superman has precious few character flaws and that makes for a very dull story.

Ugh, more Superman. I thought he was a bore even when I was a kid.

Looks like I'm going to have to stand up for my husband, a Superman fan. Have NONE OF YOU ever seen the Christopher Reeves Superman movie? Were you bored with it? I wasn't.

Look, we will grant that there is a story here, written for kids and written in the 30's that is fantastic and requires a lot of suspension of disbelief. That when Clark Kent wears glasses, for example, no one recognizes him as Superman. But there's the thing. He WAS raised as a human. He DOES have flaws and weaknesses galore--these aren't just Kryptonite and magic. He refuses to kill people. That's a weakness. Has morals and ethics. That's a weakness. He has attachments and love for vulnerable human beings. That's a weakness. This planet is his planet to protect. That's a weakness.

Most of all, his own powers are his weakness. It'd be very easy to abuse them. To surrender his faith in compassion, his belief in protecting the weak, in trying to be on the "right" side. He could easily, very easily, become the world's tyrant. How do you let people make mistakes and foul up their planet--when you can do all this? Those powers are his greatest weakness, because he can never be rid of them, yet must use them well and wisely.

Personality wise: he grew up on a farm--that makes him more like his readers than Batman, the super rich boy. He went to a normal school. He didn't get girlfriends easily--not for the "Clark" part of him, which is, ultimately, who he is. Clark. He couldn't save his parents (or dad--depending on which era of Superman your'e reading) from dying. He knows that he may live for a long time, watch everyone he loves die, and there's nothing, for all his powers, that he can do about it. How would you feel? He is the ultimate immigrant, feeling part of the world, yet knowing he's not ever going to be a part of it.

Are you, as writers, really going to tell me that you can't imagine writing up a devastatingly powerful story with a character who has such weaknesses. Or the amazing story that might be written about a man who is always seeing more, hearing more, able to do more--and because of this must always be apart and alone? Who can never have that quiet life with a wife on the farm? Friends who see the world as he sees it?

Superman stories have been done and written up continuously in a multitude of forms from 1939. That a lot of stories. And during most of that time, Superman was viewed as only being for kids and written for kids. Even with Christopher Reeves, the studios wouldn't let the character grow up that much. So they are a particular type of fantasy genre that can come across as trite and dull. But they don't have to be, and some amazing ones have been written up that are far from dull by adult writers writing up adult stories (these include the 2nd season of Smallville which was quite brilliant). Dull writers don't mean the character's dull--just that the writers writing him had no imagination, or, perhaps, no leeway to write him up well.

There is a reason Superman has lasted and become iconic. He doesn't have to be dull and boring, and it's tiring for me that people can't see past the bad writing (and the rush to make money off the character rather than do him right) to realize this.

 

[CharleyH]

Ok this thread may contain geek subject matter..

I was reading an article about how they are making yet another superman film with a new cast and there was much discussion about who is going to fill the role of superman, and who could possibly have the right qualities to pull off the job.

Seems to me the biggest challenge in making this character live again is not so much about finding the right actor, although of course that is important, as it is about the intrinsic problems of the character itself. Superman has precious few character flaws and that makes for a very dull story.

You can test his physical vulnerabilities, or you can challenge him with an ethical situation (for example, who do you save when you can only save one person at a time) Unfortunately this is very one dimensional and when they exhausted these basic themes in the first two Reeve films they had no where else to go and the next two installments were very shabby indeed.

So is there any point in making another film that is hobbled by these limitations? No matter how complex you make the plot or how big you make the special effects it's still not going to engage anybody.

Maybe the answer is to defy the expectations of the comic book nerds and give Superman some more realistic character flaws.

For example i knew of a guy who won the lottery - an ordinary guy, who never had much, worked his butt off, was very generous, had a strong sense of propriety. Suddenly all the limitations that were governing his life simply evaporated. The money was the ultimate game changer....In the beginning he was adamant that he would still be the same man - his world view wouldnt change. But of course gradually, he started to exploit the power at his disposal. He found that he could buy peoples' loyalty and win their affection. People could be manipulated more easily and their integrity tested. He slowly morphed into a righteous cunt and although he could see it happening he couldn't stop himself.

Why not make Supermans' ego and basic desires the central conflict. I think they may have explored the darker side of Supes in one of Reeve's later films but it had to do with exposure tor a certain kind of rock - which is really just another physical limitation- Obviously it would be a challenge to delve into the dark and gritty of a man who gets around in bright red undies...maybe if there was a satirical edge like the kind that Paul Verhoeven brings to film then it could work quite well...

On a similar note they changed James Bond form a kind of cardboard cut-out who was campy and suave and invulnerable. They turned him into a guy who could get hurt, feel anger, and seek revenge. It worked very well.

Beyond the obvious fact that a man wearing his red underwear outside his blue tights wouldn't really work in a film unless the film was a comedy? A new Superman movie would fail on many levels. There has already been a Superman movie and many Superman movie remakes. Superman just isn't a complex or even interesting enough character to base yet another movie on ... it's kind of like remaking The Hulk 50 times over, or Godzilla - STOP IT ALREADY!

 

[3113]

Oh, Please!

Someone wrote that as kids we were either Superman or Batman fans and there was little crossover between them. I agree. Superman is a complete bore, too stupid to be noble. Batman, on the other hand, is a gem. Human, smart, far from invulnerable while at the same time having a dark, vindictive streak to his own personality, he's much easier to identify with.

Oh, Please!

I get so damn sick of hearing this. "Batman is like us!" Uh-huh. So you were born to super-rich parents, so super-rich that you can afford planes, armored clothing, amazing cars, motorcycles, boats (and the money NEVER runs out!)...And you are a natural athlete who excelled at a dozen martial arts and so can beat up any one, and you're so vulnerable you...what? Survive a broken back? Batman did. Are you crazy? Batman isn't popular because he's easier to identify with! He's popular because he's got toys, money to burn, women (he's a playboy, remember?). He goes to parties, enjoys the night life, lives in a huge house on the hill with a secret headquarters and a butler! He's the ultimate, little boy's dream. He's not more "real."

Superman is actually more "real." He grew up with two parents who didn't get killed. (Were your parent's murdered? His dad died of a heart attack--very real!). He grew up lower-middle class. He went to public school for Christ's sake! He had trouble getting dates! He has friends instead of a butler. Why is it that all anyone sees when they make this stupid argument is the "invulnerability" power. Okay, fine. He can't break a leg. But he can have his heart broken. He can't get cut and bleed, but he can hurt with loss and helplessness. Too stupid to be noble? What a friggin' crock! And you bet Superman doesn't have a dark, vindictive streak. If he did, no one would survive it. Batman can have one because all he's going to do is beat up the Joker. Superman could destroy the countries, the planet.

Do you want a man with super strength, super speed and heat vision to have a vindictive streak?

I really, really, REALLY wish people would stop making that stupid-assed comparison--but that's the fault of the comics for putting them in the same universe--to make big bucks with a team-up, of course. They shouldn't be in the same universe--they are from different worlds. As the recent Batman movies indicate. Batman doesn't have to face magic, space-aliens, stopping an earthquake.

Superman does. Which means, they aren't in competition. They can both be liked--and both have their pros and cons, and both have their universes where they belong and fight the good fight they were created to fight. And are as smart and noble as they need to be. So go ahead and talk up your love of Batman all you want, just please, PLEASE, leave Superman out of it--you might as well be comparing apples and steak. The only thing they have in common is capes and being superheroes. Character-wise, competition for Batman is someone like Iron Man (ultra rich playboy with lots of toys), not Superman.

 

[3113]

Superman just isn't a complex or even interesting enough character to base yet another movie on

And yet Smallville is moving into...what? 10th season? Make him cute enough and put him in jeans and you've still got a character that complex and interesting enough to make, yes, yet another movie about.

Look. I don't think Jesus Christ is that complex or interesting a character. Yet every year people want to re-read the story of his birth and death. They keep making movies about him. And the thing that we adult writers often forget is that every ten years, there's new audience for such characters. One that hasn't met them yet, hasn't heard the story, and is open to whatever there is about them that makes them popular and keeps them popular.

Your being jaded with such characters doesn't make the intended audience--about age 10--jaded. It will be as magical to them as it was to 10 years olds back in 1939. It just has to jive with their world and experiences.

 

[bronzeage]

Beyond the obvious fact that a man wearing his red underwear outside his blue tights wouldn't really work in a film unless the film was a comedy? A new Superman movie would fail on many levels. There has already been a Superman movie and many Superman movie remakes. Superman just isn't a complex or even interesting enough character to base yet another movie on ... it's kind of like remaking The Hulk 50 times over, or Godzilla - STOP IT ALREADY!

Superman is as good a character as any Vampire. We have yet to run out of vampire stories. Every time the undead seemed to have breathed their last, someone resuscitates them and we are off again.

Superman just looks super. What about his self doubts? He is the one most aware of his weaknesses. How has he managed to maintain his super public persona? Even if he is super, he can only be in one place at at time. If crimes are committed in two different places, he can only foil one of them. How does he choose?

What about Superman's sex life. Obviously he has incredible stamina, but at some point Lois Lane is going to say, "Can we stop now. I'm sore and I can't feel my toes." Is he filled with pride, or just confused?

 

[CharleyH]

And yet Smallville is moving into...what? 10th season? Make him cute enough and put him in jeans and you've still got a character that complex and interesting enough to make, yes, yet another movie about.

Look. I don't think Jesus Christ is that complex or interesting a character. Yet every year people want to re-read the story of his birth and death. They keep making movies about him. And the thing that we adult writers often forget is that every ten years, there's new audience for such characters. One that hasn't met them yet, hasn't heard the story, and is open to whatever there is about them that makes them popular and keeps them popular.

Your being jaded with such characters doesn't make the intended audience--about age 10--jaded. It will be as magical to them as it was to 10 years olds back in 1939. It just has to jive with their world and experiences.

Smallville? Isn't that like a TV show with goody-goody younger Kent. The only thing interesting about that series is Lex Luther and Lana and the potential for her to have a lesbo union with her cousin or even Lois Lane. I've been waiting for it! Unlike other super-hero figures, Clark Kent just doesn't have the depth or background to make for an interesting enough character in 2010. He had the power back in the 80's and before, but in the current milieu, a character so goody-goody, with a nice background and upbringing just doesn't cut it. The world has changed. Superman hasn't. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any 10-year-old today aspired to be Superman, but by all means point it out.

 

[CharleyH]

What about Superman's sex life. Obviously he has incredible stamina, but at some point Lois Lane is going to say, "Can we stop now. I'm sore and I can't feel my toes." Is he filled with pride, or just confused?

lol Lois Lane is special. No chick on Lit would want to be fucking the goody-goody when Batman and Iron Man are also choices in 'The Dating Game'.

Look, I have no vested interest in this discussion, it's just been fun. Thank you all. Bowing out to let you get to a more serious discussion on the topic. and good luck to all sides.

 

[Weird Harold]

I admit, I've never read any comics so I half expected to be crucified for my ignorance on that ...I saw some episodes of Smallville where they introduced magic and i just thought they were making shit up for the sake of padding out episodes - but it obviously has precedence in comic book form? Aren't these things just plot devices though?

That depends on how you define plot devices. I wouldn't include character details like the inability to resist a woman with the intials LL as plot devices.

Superman has a lot of "flaws" even if DC had to rewrite history and destroy a few alternate universes to make Superman (plus Batman and Wonder Woman) more interesting. As originally conceived and written, Superman was indeed without flaws or weaknesses. DC had to introduce a rainbow of Kryptonite to weaken Superman or provide foes sufficiently powerful to challenge him -- a movie featuring Bizarro might be interesting.

In short, DC has spent decades trying to do what you originally suggested -- give Superman weaknesses and character "flaws" -- and have taken the attempt far enough a couple of times that fans have rebelled and forced DC to restore some of his invulnerability. I think it would be a mistake for Hollywood to weaken him further than current official DC canon has; there is a lot of room to exploit weaknesses and fllaw in the DC canon without adding additional non-canon flaws.

Personally, I'd like to see a new Supergirl movie more than I'd like to see yet another Superman movie. Superman movies are almost as old as the DC comic book character and he's been featured in more TV series and bad movies than Scooby Doo. Supergirl has only had top billing in one movie (1984, starring Helen Slater)

A Batgirl movie would also be more interesting to me because to my knowledge, there has never been a movie about Batgirl. Her TV and appearances are almost entirely "third banana" stuff behind Batman and Robin.

 

[sr71plt]

Aggregate consumer tastes change. That's why our superheros began getting more human traits/flaws as we pulled out of the two world war periods. So, the next successful depiction of Superman in the movies will be the one that successfully rides that wave (and even the next unsuccessful one will be an attempt to do so).

 

[mynameisben]

I say dump all the superhero movies and cartoons and vampires and special effects crap and make a movie about real people, already. Real actors portraying real people with real character flaws.

Grown adults debating the realism and identifiability of comic book heroes from the 1930's is like the sound of one hand clapping beneath the desk in the back row of Lit/Psych 101 class.

 

[sr71plt]

I say dump all the superhero movies and cartoons and vampires and special effects crap and make a movie about real people, already. Real actors portraying real people with real character flaws.

They do that already. A lot of that. One vote against variety of choice, then?

 

[3113]

I say dump all the superhero movies and cartoons and vampires and special effects crap and make a movie about real people, already. Real actors portraying real people with real character flaws.

Grown adults debating the realism and identifiability of comic book heroes from the 1930's is like the sound of one hand clapping beneath the desk in the back row of Lit/Psych 101 class.

Funny, when people say things like that to me, all I hear is the sound of their other hand doing what it's doing there under the desk of that Lit/Psych 101 class.

Do you really want nothing but slice-of-life-stories in the theaters? Every film can be The Blind Side or Precious? Vetted through Oprah's book club first?

I think I'll stick with discussions on superhero movies.

P.S. And what's this "grown adult" shit? Is the Iliad has superheroes in it--and there's been grown-adult discussions over for hundreds of years. I see no reason to think that superheroes, and discussions on them, should be regulated to kids. Besides, last I looked, we were writers. Why should any character of any genre be beyond discussing?

 

[mynameisben]

They do that already. A lot of that. One vote against variety of choice, then?

I'm not advocating censorship. What I meant to convey is there is a glut of crap out there. It seems every third tier comic book hero is having a movie made about them these days. New comic book heroes are hastily invented to keep the pablum flowing. A new computer chip is invented, and 10 fantasy movies without plot or direction race through the channels to cash in on the special effects bedazzled millions.

I would just like to see the pendulum swing the other way, is all. You know me, I'm a snot and blood realist.