is "Superman" a captive of "Superman: the movie" ?

[Jor-L5150]

Is superman the character a captive of superman the movie?

Let me say, at the outset, that the purpose of this topic is not in any way shape or form a criticism, complaint or appeal to those who may or may not prefer versions of superman outside of “superman: the movie”, or was we tend to call it, “Donner-verse”. We all have a passionate affection for the character of superman, and we are all ferociously opinionated. So no one is categorically “wrong” for liking/loving/hating or simply not being interested in other iterations of the superman character. This post is simply an observation of the pervasive influence on subsequent superman mythology and impact- good, bad, or otherwise- on later adaptations.

For many years we have been alert to the fact that superman is one of the most successful literary/artistic concepts in history. This success has saturated the public consciousness and made elements of superman part of a global lexicon. On one hand, it’s a testament to the continuing appeal of superman; on the other it makes it difficult for producers and writers to do anything novel with him without running afoul of devoted fans who are fiercely protective of this fictional man. (I myself have often been such- to the point of hyperbole). We all know the basic, untouchable concepts as to what superman is or isn’t- but there is also a difficult-to-navigate gray area with regard to content and cosmetics that can illicit contentious debate. There is also a long, 75 year history of multimedia that can be culled for evidence (or …ammunition) to buttress one fans ideal or sheckac anothers ideal.

But of all the Superman in films, television, or animation NONE have have cast as long a shadow as “Donner-verse”. And it greatly informs the public’s concept of superman-sensibilities. To THIS day, it is very omnipresent as we discuss current Superman material. Even though, the (highly debatable) close of the “Donner-verse” was 1987’s “Superman IV: the less said the better” and thereafter versions like the romantic-comedy pastiche of “Lois and Clark” and the very entertaining “Superman: the animated series” veered well away from it (while inheriting a smattering of cosmetic similarities) you also have several productions all but married to it. There was “Superboy: the series”, which was posited as a revisionist prequel to “Superman: the movie”. Simultaneously, there was the “Ruby-Spears” cartoon series that, although based on then-current comics, used the John Williams theme. Later on “Smallville” started out blazing its own trail, but morphed and ret-conned into yet another revisionist prequel, and, concurrently, 2006’s “Superman Returns” was offered as an alternative sequel. Meanwhile DC comics allowed writers Kurt Busiek and Geoff Johns to infuse the official Superman comics with an overt “Donner-verse” makeover. Richard Donner himself suggested story material for the comic books, while illustrators Adam Kubert and Gary Frank would conspicuously draw Clark Kent to look like Brandon Routh and Christopher Reeve respectively (Frank also depicted Lois as the cute and precocious Margot Kidder from the 1978 film- mercifully not as she looked in the sequels. Sadly for Mark McClure, Jimmy Olsen was still drawn in his traditional comic book appearance).

It is abundantly apparent that “Superman: the movie/Donner-verse” was the baseline for a generation of superman fans and heavily affected other depictions. This has, in the view of many, made “STM” a sort of rule-book, or “governor” and it inevitably leads to inconsistent standards of what content or tone is “appropriate” for Superman. For example: many were surprised, some even offended at the idea of Superman having a child out of wedlock- even though they had compartmentalized the very act of him getting Lois pregnant in the first place! Some fans were puzzled how the “Smallville” series could have Clark/Kal exist in company with almost the ENTIRE “DC who’s who” before he ever actually became superman! Other fans groaned at the later, cornball seasons of “Lois and Clark” but had gotten used tothe ludicrous (to the point of self parody) superpowers like the cellophane giant-S net (brilliantly satired by “Family Guy”) or finger-pointing-laser beams, teleportation or, my personal favorite, “brick-laying-vision”. I wish I could say I was making that last part up- but it happened. Evidently superman is a stone-mason who can build walls by LOOKING at piles of rubble- IN the “Donner-verse”.
Of course, the official mandate from Warner Bros is that the “Donner-verse” is indeed, officially closed. DC comics have again made an unwieldy revamp of the official comics with a new Superman in “New 52”. Although the recent “Superman Unbound” animated feature was based on a “Donner-verse” storyline, the visual elements and character design peculiar to that version were stripped away (to the disappointment of many). The immediate future of Superman on film, and other DC films, will (in all likelihood) be built on the platform of “Man of Steel”- of which a majority of critics are basing their views based on the notion of Superman they recall from Donner’s 1978 epic.

Please understand that this is NOT a mean-spirited complaint of “Donner-verse” by any means. “Superman: the movie” is, and will always remain my favorite film of any era or genre and with rare exception no other version of Superman is even close to being as engaging. So the point is this:
Can Superman fans of our generation ever truly see Superman WITHOUT the prism of Christopher Reeve? The success creatively and commercially of “Superman: the movie” practically reinvented how superheroes were viewed by the general public. It redefined the genre of films/TV based on comic book characters and along with “Star Wars”, “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” and “Jaws” changed how major film studios saw the filming and financing of spectacle films.

That said, can Superman outgrow his greatest hit?

[Deleted]

You all know my answer to this. I truly think it fucks with all of our opinions, no matter what we all admit. There's just no way we, a group of people brought together by Reeve Superman films, could ever not have them in mind when watching other Superman things. All of us.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[Metallo]

Not everyone here is a fan of the ONLY the movie or the movie at the expense of everything else. Some of us are fans of the character as a whole. Is Superman a captive of STM? Nope. As long as someone makes an amazing film that respects the characters history too no past incarnation is going to hold it back

An entire generation grew up on George Reeves. I'd argue that AOS was the trial run that on some level influenced every superhero tv show and other incarnations of Superman that came after it. George raised the bar? Chris raised it again. A certain dude with like thirty five ex wives said to be the man ya gotta beat the man. George defined Superman. Chris and co honored that but redefined him while staying true and never totally selling Superman out in a time when he WAS passé. Not only that but they made the magic happen. They made something unique. That's why Superman the movie took the character to another level. It set the trend in an entire medium just like TAOS.

STM and Reeve's only things were that they were the blueprints, the measuring sticks, and were both SO good. It's the job of the next incarnation take the baton and run with it and raise the bar if it wants to stand tall on its own and claim the prize. If filmmakers can't hack it that's their problem. Don't put the blame on people not being able to let to of the past versions.

MOS needed to rise above every other superhero film and be something truly special if it didn't just want to be yet another superhero film among many. It's not STM holding Superman back its the fact that the competition has become that much more fierce. Standard issue superhero movie isn't going to cut it anymore. Superman's always been the first. The trend setter. If any future incarnation of Superman wants to truly redefine the character and reach the highest highs it needs to do what all the greatest past incarnations of Superman have done: set trends instead of following them. He's the greatest hero of all and the quality of his productions should reflect that. They have in the past. And those productions have carved their places in pop culture history.

[crazy_asian_man]

Yes and no.... I grew up with Reeves not Reeve as my first experience of Superman in 'live-action', but I thought that in many ways Donner's version was a better interpretation than what the comics and tv offered (the crystal Fortress of Solitude and how they did Supes' first introduction to the world)--- but in other ways not (Lex's real estate schemes, time reversal, Krypton's lack of variety vs. the comics).

Much of what people associate with Superman comes from even the comics code, I think... at least my generation did- even though it's been abandoned for quite awhile now---

And, being a corporate entity, I think it adhered the most to the code for the longest time---

Here is what's cribbed from Wiki's comics code entry as to what the rules are/were:



Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals.
If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.
Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.
Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation.
In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.
Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.
No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.
All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.
All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated.
Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.
Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.
Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.
Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure.
Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.
Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.
Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes as well as sexual abnormalities are unacceptable.
Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.
Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.
Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.

Also--- I think that this image is what made some feel SR dipped too much into dark waters with Superman's character with the kid out of wedlock and the 'looking in on/spying' (it is on the edge, admittedly) of Lois.

Anyhow--- I don't think Superman the character is a captive of Superman the Movie, so much as it made a challenge to filmmakers that followed it: to make creative choices as good, or better, if trying to compete for the audience's attention and long-term memory. The problems is if it splits the audience into half thinking the new choices weren't as good vs. the other half being fine with a new version.

I think that's the whole reason why Lois and Clark borrowed SO heavily from STM--- and why we even got a lot of nods to STM in Smallville--- I don't think Superman is a captive to STM--- but a captive to what the general public remembers and keeps alive for him. Just as fan films of Superman can do whatever they want with the character, so can Hollywood--- but if they deviate too much from what a giant number of people think Superman needs to be in how they execute a film/story, then the audience will either decide it's better to abandon the new approach or (maybe worse) just not be interested.

[Deleted]

ofcourse it is.

Not for everyone but for a large number of people, on this forum especially it will keep them from really investing in anything new. Human nature at times and to be fair it is always easy to spot those ones.

[Metallo]

I think very few if any on this forum fall under that umbrella. Like I said blaming the old incarnation for the new one not rising above is an excuse. When a film sets trends instead of following them and truly is something special it'll get the recognition and praise in deserves and take its rightful place.

If Snyder had truly knocked it of of the park STM wouldn't be an issue. It wouldn't really matter. WB/DC ruled the roost for decades but people had no problem jumping on board with Marvel when they set the new trends and changed the game. WB got lazy and it put them in second place trying to catch up. Some of us felt the same love for Burton's Bat films but we embraced Nolan's too. There's room for all if new creators have something worth it.

[Deleted]

But Snyder did knock it out the park for some people, maybe he didn't for you but he did for others.. I think there's people on here who will never invest in anything that isn't donner and Reeve and it's blatantly obvious. Some have basically said as much

[Deleted]

Depends on the person. We've all got our own ideas. Remember what Jack Lemmon said in "My Fellow Americans"?

"There's 50 million people out there and they're all bitching for something different."

My perspective, I speak for no one else ...

Standing in line with four other people for those damn Walmart tickets, guy tries to make small talk with me. Was whining about how the movie wasn't using the Williams music. I said good. If I wanted the same old shit, I've got five movies of that at home on Blu-ray. If I wasn't getting something new, I wouldn't be standing around Walmart at 8 fucking in the morning.

[EnriqueH]

I don't think future Superman movies are "captive" of the Donnerverse. I think Superman fans do want to see great Superman movies being made. They've had over 20 years to bounce back from SIV and they haven't entirely succeeded IMO.

Part of me does have a bit of a meloncholy,detachment since it's hard to let go of Reeve's portrayal, but a great Superman movie---great Superman anything---help keep Superman relevant and therefore his history.

So no matter how sad I am that the Donnerverse is past us, I still root for Superman.

The problem isn't moving on from Reeve/Donner. The problem is that they can't make a great picture. Superman Returns---while attempting to keep the Donnerverse alive---was a disappointment because it was mostly drama. Man of Steel had the opposite problem. Both are arguably good films---both have their fans---but there are enough flaws in both films that keep it from being an airtight case of a great film, like Superman: The Movie, Star Wars, Wizard of Oz, etc.

So if Superman: The Movie keeps anything captive, it's that there is a high bar set. A genuinely good movie was made in 1978 that qualifies as a classic. Can today's filmmakers do anything as good? That remains to be seen, but if STM has proven anything, it's that it's not as easy as Donner made it look.

[Metallo]

Jun 27, 2013 19:26:08 GMT -5 @kris said:

But Snyder did knock it out the park for some people, maybe he didn't for you but he did for others.. I think there's people on here who will never invest in anything that isn't donner and Reeve and it's blatantly obvious. Some have basically said as much

No film is going to please everyone but if this film had TRULY KNOCKED it out of the park fans wouldn't be nearly as divided. And even a lot of people who like the film say its just good not great. If if was truly GREAT more people would be saying so. If it knocked it out of the park MOS would have done a better job of fighting off the challenge of WWZ and Monsters University. Maybe not win the weekend but at meat keep the gap smaller. Knocking it out of the park means it is a game changer. This movie is no Spider-man 02 or Batman 89 or Avengers. It's a big comic book movie among many. Ok but not special. If it was it would have done a lot more than it did.

[Jor-L5150]

What would/did folks who grew up on george reeves really think of a superman who had barely off camera sex with lois?
What did the die-hards of the 70s think of the cosmetic look of superman the movie?
If we were in their shoes would we look at our ICON the way fans and critics are looking at "man of steel" ?
You can't tell me that it is not a SIGNIFIGANT factor.

STM is a HEAVILY flawed film- but its amazing to watch and has a perfect cast. MOS is a flawed film - but its amazing to watch and has a perfect cast.
STM has a lotta "heart" - no one disputes, but that "heart" is the frosting over plot holes and camp. If we levelled the scrutiny at STM that we do for modern CBMs I think we'd shred it.

Again, the character AND the genre are competing against their own success.

[Deleted]

Very well spoken.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using proboards

[EnriqueH]

STM and SII are flawed films, but what it gets right more than compensates for what it gets wrong, which is why they're benchmarks for what to do correctly with a superhero movie---particularly a Superman movie---more than 30 years later and almost 10 years after its leading man passed away.

STM and SII *get* what Superman is about. MoS doesn't quite get there. The emotion and heart of what make Superman special are muted.

I liked MoS, but it doesn't match the quality and understanding of the first two Superman movies. It comes close but doesn't get the cigar.

[atp]

WARNING: MOS SPOILERS BELOW







STM wasn't trying to follow or outdo anything else, and so it was just allowed to be its own thing. That was its strength.

The problem with MoS is that it tries to play the same game as all the other superhero movies, and tries to outdo them in order to be king of the hill. By taking part in this game of "one-upmanship", everything gets pushed to ridiculous levels where audiences stop caring.

For instance:

- Uncle Ben in Spiderman and Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman Begins were killed by muggers with guns. So to top that, Pa Kent has to die in a tornado in MoS.
- Thor's father rides a horse. OK, to top that, Kal-El's father has to ride a dragonfly.
- Loki has some weird machine that wrecks a city. OK, so now Zod has to have an even bigger machine and wipe out even more buildings.
- In Thor, he fights some weird armoured machine and trashes a small town. OK, so now, this has to be repeated and amped up in Smallville.
- Dr Octopus has weird scary tentacles. OK, so let's give Zod's "world engine" even bigger, more vicious tentacles.
etc. etc. etc.

Instead of just trying to follow and outdo all the other superhero movies, MoS should have refused to play that game and just done its own thing. There comes a point where less is definitely more. Not only that, but the next superhero movie can come along with a bigger budget than MoS and outdo it in terms of scale too. When that happens, MoS won't be king of the hill any longer. No-one can win that game. To become as special as STM, a new Superman film has to be original and not depend on being the biggest spectacle.

Terminator 2 had the perfect scale. It was bigger than the first Terminator film, but not too big. The technology and CGI was incredible for the time, but was used sparingly. Seeing the T-1000 melt through the bars in the mental hospital has more of an impact than seeing a dozen buildings falling down in MoS.

On the other hand, Terminator Salvation tried to outdo T2. The scale grew to insane levels. That's why no-one gave a fuck about it, but everyone still remembers T2.

[atp]

Also, Iron Man takes off with a bang abd vapour trails. So now Superman has to do the same but even bigger.

[ye5man]

There's just no way we, a group of people brought together by Reeve Superman films, could ever not have them in mind when watching other Superman things. All of us.

Not for me.

I didn't think of STM in MOS at all except for parallels (which cannot be avoided)

I fell in love with the AOS at age 30 (b/w eps). I now put Reeves right up there.

I am not on the fence on MoS because I am comparing to STM. To suggest otherwise is an insult.


Great topic btw. Really interesting thought. Hopefully people will finally move on from Reeve now. The real problem is (for me), MoS is just no "Avengers"

[EnriqueH]

Yeah, I didn't think of STM either.

MoS was doing well enough to bring me into the film without letting my mind wander over to STM.

[Deleted]

Russ I think we can safely say you were NOT one of the people who just wanted a STM clone, I know you were genuinely looking forward to it and your issues with MOS are genuine. But there are others who could never hide their bias and nostalgia, and will never convince me of it otherwise

[EnriqueH]

Kris, you just need to accept that there are people who just thought the movie wasn't as great as you thought. Period.

I liked the movie but found it didn't really convey the emotion it should have.

The movie wasn't alive the way the Nolan flicks were. And that's unfortunate.

Hopefully they can build on that and make a better sequel, but with Snyder directing, I don't have much hope. I enjoyed most of his films, but his strong suits aren't suited to Superman.

[Deleted]

I do accept that, you should read the post right before yours. I also accept the fact some people are just too attached to the donnerverse to get into anything else.

Keep in mind Enrique, I didn't 'love' the film. I really enjoyed it, but I know it wasn't groundbreaking or anything, i've pretty much acknowledged it's flaws but whenever people get defensive they seem to invest this scenario where I adored the film and won't hear a bad word about it. At the same time i'm being told 'accept some people didn't like it', other people need to accept that some people are just hung up on another 35 year old Superman film.

ps, if the next one ends up anything like as drawn out, self important and up it's own ass as The Dark Knight i'll be crushed. I do find it slightly amusing that it was peoples beloved Nolan who hand picked Snyder for this project. I still maintain he wasn't the problem, it was Goyer and whoever else was involved in writing and structuring the film.

[ChrisM]

Jun 27, 2013 20:29:35 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

The problem isn't moving on from Reeve/Donner. The problem is that they can't make a great picture.

...if STM has proven anything, it's that it's not as easy as Donner made it look.

Great points.

I think we all have a certain bias or reverence for STM, and perhaps some of us secretly wish all future Superman films fail to an extent to keep their beloved classic on the pedestal. BUT even despite that, I think part of us does yearn for a new Superman film that we can love without apology. For myself, if there is ever another great Superman film made, I can admit to as much even if part of me is sad that it may push Reeve's legacy further into the shadows.

But I think we also need to reframe what a great comic book movie is all about. The ludicrous nature of the material makes it almost impossible to make a great comic-based film end-to-end without some of those disadvantages rearing their head from time to time. STM is NOT a great film end-to-end. It has holes and flaws that would be ripped apart if it were released today. The absurdity of its resolution would probably insult many to the point of walking right out of the theater. But it got enough parts RIGHT... with several perfect MOMENTS scattered throughout the film... and it leaves you with a feeling of goodwill. I think if any new Superman film can achieve that, we can learn to accept and forgive the shortcomings in time.

Let's also remember STM was setup to fail. It had a lot going against it, and this is not even touching on the fact that it was running uphill against a culture that deemed comic books too silly to command major respect. Donner saved that project from disaster, brought the right people on board, made the right casting choices, the right hires for editing, revising the script, the obsession with verisimilitude, etc. There was also a lot of luck - e.g. certain actors and directors turning down offers. A new Superman film needs a lot of luck and great timing and key factors coming together to succeed the way we want it to.

[Metallo]

Jun 27, 2013 21:08:27 GMT -5 Jor-L5150 said:

What would/did folks who grew up on george reeves really think of a superman who had barely off camera sex with lois?
What did the die-hards of the 70s think of the cosmetic look of superman the movie?
If we were in their shoes would we look at our ICON the way fans and critics are looking at "man of steel" ?
You can't tell me that it is not a SIGNIFIGANT factor.

STM is a HEAVILY flawed film- but its amazing to watch and has a perfect cast. MOS is a flawed film - but its amazing to watch and has a perfect cast.
STM has a lotta "heart" - no one disputes, but that "heart" is the frosting over plot holes and camp. If we levelled the scrutiny at STM that we do for modern CBMs I think we'd shred it.

Again, the character AND the genre are competing against their own success.

Well first off you don't know what the fuck camp is if you're throwing around that tired assed MOS cheerleader complaint of STM. People who do that focus on the surface and don't even think about it. STM is a flawed film but its a lot less flawed than MOS. STMS flaws are mostly down to CHOICES and artistic ideas.. MOS flaws are down to EXECUTION. See the difference? A lot of people's complaints of STM SEEM to be over elements they don't like. But it's story is told very well. Snyder had trouble doing that.

The flaw in your a argument is you're stuck on cosmetics but you ignore the problems of execution which seem to be the beef most critics have with MOS. And even then all things said despite all its flaws STM was pulled off despite much more against it and while older fans may not have all cared for certain choices most of the complaints don't dwell on execution.

[Metallo]

Jun 28, 2013 8:16:23 GMT -5 EnriqueH said:

Kris, you just need to accept that there are people who just thought the movie wasn't as great as you thought. Period.

I liked the movie but found it didn't really convey the emotion it should have.

The movie wasn't alive the way the Nolan flicks were. And that's unfortunate.

Hopefully they can build on that and make a better sequel, but with Snyder directing, I don't have much hope. I enjoyed most of his films, but his strong suits aren't suited to Superman.

People keep defecting MOSs flaws as being something else and it's hilarious to me. The detractors don't think the movie is flawed because it didn't follow Donner's. Its flawed because parts of it were poorly executed. When your actors aren't always emoting right or when you have a director that's not great at acting scenes and a story that doesn't flow right that's the problem. Why do people think Snyders played it safe his whole career? He's a niche guy an action and visual guy. He knows that's where his strengths are

A story with this kind of depth needed a director with the kind of maturity intelligence and character to TELL it. That's why STM worked. Donner wasn't some jaded jock minded style over substance frat boy. He's a story teller.

The late GREAT Richard Matheson wrote one if the most popular episodes of the Twilight Zone ever: Nightmare at 20000 Feet. Who directed it? Richard Donner. Donner was more than what you could see on the surface and he never played into some niche image through his career. If you were going to work on something like TZ you damn well better be a STORYTELLER because there was no lens flares or explosions to cover your ass when the story didn't work. Storytelling is a lost art with many of today's directors who can look at something but not really understand the soul of it or have the depth of person to express complex ideas.

When's Snyder EVER done anything like a Twilight Zone? Could he? In fact when he remade Dawn of the Dead he sucked most of Romero's social commentary and depth right of of the movie. THAT is the prime example of why MOS is flawed. He took on the kind of story he is creatively ill equipped to execute.

Some people might be satisfied with a story where Superman just punches somebody but he character has always been about more than that. Especially at his peaks. It's a great sci fi story and sci fi stories always need true talents behind them. It's also a story with a lot of themes. Stories like those need people with more than just a vision for action.

That's what separates the sci fi works of a Jim Cameron or Ridley Scott or Paul Verhoeven from the works of a Zack Snyder. Those guys were REAL visionaries. It's not Jair about painting a pretty picture but what your pretty picture is trying to express. It's also what separates a Whedon from a Snyder. His pictures might not be as stylish but they say MUCH more.

[ye5man]

The problem isn't moving on from Reeve/Donner. The problem is that they can't make a great picture.

I whole heartedly agree

If the film was as brilliant as Avengers, it would have had brilliant word of mouth. We'd all love it and it would have made a fucking fortune and nobody would be comparing it negatively to STM. A few Reeve maniacs would hate it by default but normal folk like us would be hugely relieved.

Because its not that film, people are looking at excuses. And when people nitpick we get blamed for wearing nostalgia glasses, which is really pathetic.


is "Superman" a captive of "Superman: the movie" ?. Its a relevant question. But had MoS done its duty we would not be asking it.

[atp]

It is interesting to think that the Salkinds wanted Donner because of his work on a totally unrelated film, The Omen.

Somehow, they must have seen something in that movie that told them he would be good for STM.

Perhaps that is how to find a good director for a new Superman movie. By looking wider than people who have directed superhero movies.