Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Just Tony wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
The fact that MoS still doesn't have a proper sequel lined up is kinda ridiculous. That suggests WB is being far, far too sensitive to criticism, even though they probably made some financially correct decisions in moving away from Snyder's vision. Cripes, there's no good reason that Hal Jordan isn't in the JL movie other WB still feeling burned by the Reynolds film. They could have moved on from that and just given the character a soft reboot with a different actor...audiences would understand.

This is confirmed? So Hal isn't the surprise reveal? I've been really lucky to avoid spoilers thus far...

No, I haven't seen it and haven't read every spoiler, so don't take that as confirmation. It definitely APPEARS as though he's not, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Compel wrote:
So yeah, not perfect, to be honest.

Exactly. Marvel wasn't all sunshine and roses early on. And don't forget that Iron Man was far from a sure thing - there were a lot of clouds over RDJ when he was cast.

One interesting difference that gets overlooked is that Marvel was positively penny-pinching with those early films. Four of the first five were $150MM budget or lower. And while they've had multiple films over $200MM now, they recently had Ant-Man at $130MM and Dr. Strange at $165MM. They like managing their risk. And that's a good thing too, as the early films did a mere fraction of the box office that more recent films have.

Conversely, WB went ALL IN (pun intended) with their films, both with their choice of director/godfather and the huge budgets. Perhaps the few hundred million sunk into each film was a reason they've been acting like nervous nellies throughout.

Still, I've seen multiple reviews praise the characters in JL and say they'd like to see them again (in a better movie). If that's the takeaway from JL, then I think WB can officially consider their universe salvaged.

 LunarSol wrote:
I actually find the big, silly, city leveling fight and neck snapping end of MoS one of the least dark things about it. What really drains me on the film is Smallville and how much angst they try to pour into his backstory. The tornado sequence is one of the silliest things out there (could the dog at least still be alive in the present?) and Costner's Pa in general tries to crib too much off of X-Men's niche for my liking.

The world fear/hating Superman isn't the problem with the film, its that Clark is drained of any sense of family or community to contrast against it. Everybody just kind of fear/hates everyone else and it makes it hard to care about anyone. For a character often criticized for being generic and boring, the movie somehow makes him more generic than he's ever been and the film definitely suffers for it.

I think the city leveling end of Man of Steel actually could have worked, if as you say they hadn't spent a couple of hours before then showing Clarke Kent being inexplicably resentful and mistrusting of everyone for everything.

If instead Superman had naturally and happily started his acts of heroism, and if humans had naturally loved him for it, then that sets up an interesting dynamic when Zod arrives and demands Superman. People would then start to hate him for bringing Zod, the military could attempt to capture Superman, and the final ending could have had real pathos - Superman willing to fight for humanity even when humanity will not. But we didn't get that movie

The other main difference between the DC and Marvel films?

Marvel went with B List, because they’d sold off their A List to keep the company afloat.

Unlike Superman (Christopher Reeves for my generation is the definitive), most folk didn’t really know much about Iron Man/Tony Stark and his chums.

On one hand, that’s a big risk. The names weren’t going to sell those films alone. That they produced good movies in the end was luck as much as judgement.

But MoS? Barely recognisable as Supes. And I think that did damage. You can absolutely make a Dark and Gritty Batman. He’s motivated by revenge and a personal crusade. That fits. Supes? He’s meant to be a sickengly goody two shoes, at least in the public conscience. So the audience just wasn’t ready for a mardy arsed Supes, not by a long shot.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The other main difference between the DC and Marvel films?

Marvel went with B List, because they’d sold off their A List to keep the company afloat.

Not to nitpick but...not quite.

Iron Man, Thor and Captain America - while not having quite the 'reach' of Batman or Superman (and maybe Spider-Man), aren't quite 'B' list.

At that time, Marvel couldn't use Spider-Man, and had already kinda/sorta screwed up the Hulk (their other 'reconginzable' name), so they went with the Avengers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Unlike Superman (Christopher Reeves for my generation is the definitive), most folk didn’t really know much about Iron Man/Tony Stark and his chums.

Again, Batman and Superman = well known names. Everyone else? Not so much.

And didn't Superman and Superman 2 come out before you were born?

You can have Superman 3 and 4 though...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


But MoS? Barely recognisable as Supes. And I think that did damage. You can absolutely make a Dark and Gritty Batman. He’s motivated by revenge and a personal crusade. That fits. Supes? He’s meant to be a sickengly goody two shoes, at least in the public conscience. So the audience just wasn’t ready for a mardy arsed Supes, not by a long shot.

Hilariously enough, one of the biggest knocks on Superman has often been that he's too much of a goody-two shoes. Especially for 'today's age'.

So, what happens when he gets dirtied up a bit?

Yeah, exactly.

DC's in a tough place, and has an uphill battle.

They'd be wise to, as Gorgon mentioned earlier, not pay too much attention to...most of the critics.

Just concentrate on making good movies - and they'll make plenty of money.

Thor, Cap and Shellhead weren't exactly household names at the outset of the MCU. So I think that meant audiences went in without expectation of how a given character should act and behave.

Compare to Supes? I get the criticism that he's too goody two shoes (and I agree, to some extent). Dirtying him up a bit isn't a bad idea - but MoS felt like an unexplained 180 flip. I don't think the general public were quite ready for that.

(also, I'm 37, born in 1980. Supes 1-4 were part of my Movies On TV childhood!)

Consider the journey Batman had been on. When I was a nipper, it was the Adam West. Then, around the age of 9, came Tim Burton's. Still camp in it's own way, but a good bit darker in tone. Daft, but not ridiculous. Following that of course came Batman The Animated Adventures, which I've already praised just a few posts ago. That really pushed who Batman is for a decent slice of the audience. So when The Dark Knight came around, the groundwork for a darker, mankier Batman had been laid.

But Superman didn't have that. Even Superman Returns doesn't serve as a halfway house between Richard Donner and Zak Snyder's respective takes.

Perhaps MoS will be looked on more favourably in future. But for now, I think it was, tonally, too much, too soon in terms of change.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Consider the journey Batman had been on. When I was a nipper, it was the Adam West. Then, around the age of 9, came Tim Burton's. Still camp in it's own way, but a good bit darker in tone. Daft, but not ridiculous. Following that of course came Batman The Animated Adventures, which I've already praised just a few posts ago. That really pushed who Batman is for a decent slice of the audience. So when The Dark Knight came around, the groundwork for a darker, mankier Batman had been laid.

But Superman didn't have that. Even Superman Returns doesn't serve as a halfway house between Richard Donner and Zak Snyder's respective takes.

Perhaps MoS will be looked on more favourably in future. But for now, I think it was, tonally, too much, too soon in terms of change.

MoS had to be the one to break eggs, and that's always a tough spot when you have people with many preconceived ideas (in Superman's case, many that were rooted in films and comics from the '70s!). You're 100% correct that this is where Marvel had a subtle but important advantage.

WB was in that spot with Superman because Singer copped out and gave us a weird semi-sequel to decades-old movies with a lead actor who looked like the dead previous lead actor. Storywise, it had a Superman who'd impregnated Lois and removed her memory, and then spent time hovering over Lois's house, creeping on her family. When you step back and consider it, it's a really strange fething film beyond all the miscasts and bad performances. And yet according to Metacritic, critics liked it a little more than Batman Begins, and much more than (IMO) a better cast, written, directed and conceived film in MoS.

Batman Begins scored a 70 on MC. Batman Forever scored a 51! There's a little more than 19 points of quality difference between those films. But context is important. Batman Begins had to break eggs to set up the terrific TDK, and in doing so some critics felt it was too dark and lacking the fun (which really meant 'camp') of the Schumacher films. The Batman AS probably did some lifting, but I'd really look to BB as the vehicle that took the brunt of it, and it shows in the reviews that are more lukewarm than you'd think. Release BB today, and it's probably an 85.

I just think they jumped too far, too soon.

A grimmer Superman can be interesting. After all, when you skew things a little, he becomes an over protective dictator, albeit a benevolent one. In the post cold war climate, he's a relic of 'America, WORLD POLICE!' that's just not welcome anymore - even though he's never done anything against our species own interests.

But at this stage, I think DC could genuinely do with going back to the drawing board. What they've aimed for was bold, no doubting that, it was just a bit lacking in execution for most. The apparent/alleged damage control on JL doesn't seem to have paid off - if the reviews are anything to go by.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Perhaps MoS will be looked on more favourably in future. But for now, I think it was, tonally, too much, too soon in terms of change.

You know, DC Warner had gotten great reviews for Burton making Batman darker and gritter; and then even higher praise when Nolan went darker and grittier yet again. With the high praise for dark and gritty Watchmen and the Matrix and so forth, making a darker and grittier Superman trilogy makes perfect sense.

Right up until Marvel pulls a Billion dollars from a lighter, team-focused Avengers movie and resets everyone's expectations of what a superhero movie can be.

I believe Zack's original plan was MoS and a 2-part Doomsday / Death of Superman, because that is the story he'd naturally tell as darker and grittier. Recall what a big thing Death of Superman was when it was originally published. Everything that got added to be more like Marvel's Avengers is where things went wrong. Pretty sure that Loopy Lex (for the comedy and light tone) and Batman (for snark) and WW and all of that stuff was all just tacked on by studio fiat.

DC has long had issues with what "darkening" really means. A lot of it is simply due to how much success they've gotten with Batman's reworking in the 80's and some phenomenal deconstruction of the superhero medium in general through works like the Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. The solution becomes "make Superman like Batman or Dr Manhattan" but that kind of misses the point of deconstruction.

Marvel has had a much better history with Cap (assuming they don't make a Secret Empire movie...). They don't try to reinvent him by giving him personal issues so much as they darken the world around him and challenge him by creating a world that no longer supports what he believes in.

Ultimately that's what lets down attempts to make Supes darker. The more you try to play up the things that make him like other heroes like being an orphan or whatever, but in doing so, you lose the opportunity to use his unique voice to create worthwhile character interactions. So many great stories rely on the contrast of Superman and Batman, so trying to port in the success of one on the other seems like a huge mistake, particularly if you're trying to put them in a movie together.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Perhaps MoS will be looked on more favourably in future. But for now, I think it was, tonally, too much, too soon in terms of change.

You know, DC Warner had gotten great reviews for Burton making Batman darker and gritter; and then even higher praise when Nolan went darker and grittier yet again. With the high praise for dark and gritty Watchmen and the Matrix and so forth, making a darker and grittier Superman trilogy makes perfect sense.

Right up until Marvel pulls a Billion dollars from a lighter, team-focused Avengers movie and resets everyone's expectations of what a superhero movie can be.

I believe Zack's original plan was MoS and a 2-part Doomsday / Death of Superman, because that is the story he'd naturally tell as darker and grittier. Recall what a big thing Death of Superman was when it was originally published. Everything that got added to be more like Marvel's Avengers is where things went wrong. Pretty sure that Loopy Lex (for the comedy and light tone) and Batman (for snark) and WW and all of that stuff was all just tacked on by studio fiat.

Ultimately I think it will be said that they erred in 'killing' Superman -- and especially Clark, how will they work that out? -- at such an early stage in the universe. Cliffhangers are something for episodic television. And while old grizzled Batman has a certain appeal, it also isn't a great way to start the character in a new universe.

I guess a pithier version of all my previous blather is that while Snyder was focused on telling a very specific TDKR/Death of Supes story, what WB actually needed was someone focused on laying groundwork for the future and engaging general audiences.

 LunarSol wrote:
Marvel gave us 4 years of movies to make Avengers hit. Everyone else is trying to do in less than 2. Marvel also gave themselves a ton of options early on. There's a lot of opportunity to see what's working (if only at a studio level) and what's not and adapt future movies accordingly in all the films prior to Avengers.

^^This hit the problem I think is happening for WB.

https://www.facebook.com/dennis.detwiller/posts/10159633222395584
But there is also this from Dennis Detwiller.
A bit of a run down on who Dennis Detwiller is: Dennis Detwiller is a game designer for various RPGs and most notably for the award winning Call of Cthulhu game, Delta Green. He also works as a managing editor for Monte Cook games.

 gorgon wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I believe Zack's original plan was MoS and a 2-part Doomsday / Death of Superman, because that is the story he'd naturally tell as darker and grittier. Recall what a big thing Death of Superman was when it was originally published. Everything that got added to be more like Marvel's Avengers is where things went wrong. Pretty sure that Loopy Lex (for the comedy and light tone) and Batman (for snark) and WW and all of that stuff was all just tacked on by studio fiat.

I guess a pithier version of all my previous blather is that while Snyder was focused on telling a very specific TDKR/Death of Supes story, what WB actually needed was someone focused on laying groundwork for the future and engaging general audiences.

Well, sure, now that we've seen how the MCU works and pulls Avengers money...

However, if you're pitching against the aftermath of the MCU Hulk and Thor movies, then IM is beginnner's luck. In that context, a DoS-based standalone Superman trilogy makes perfect sense. Remember, the timelines for movies are long before they ever start filming, much less hit the screen. I don't think Warner or Zack ever intended Superman to feed into JL when he started filming MoS. In fact, JL probably wasn't even a concept until after the Avengers hit.

I think part of the problem DC had was the time it took them to actually get going, and the fact that forced them to play catch up more and more.

If they'd released MoS in 2013 then gone straight onto, say Wonder Woman the following year, Batman the year after that (last so it's furthest possible distance from The Dark Knight trilogy), they could have still released BvS in 2016 as JL-light/Trinity film but without having to set up WW and Batman in the movie as well... Then, use the second 2016 and first 2017 film to introduce, say, Green Lantern and Flash, then bring it all together with Aquaman and Cyborg introduced in JL in 2017. (and the next two to get solo films). It's quite a pace, but no faster than the early years of the MCU.

Suicide Squad seems an odd one to have picked so early, but perhaps it did it's job in establishing that this is a properly comic book universe and that the metahumans are everywhere... Perhaps, though, it would have been better served as a Batman story first and foremost a la the Assault on Arkham animated movie, which while focusing mainly on the Squad does ultimately come down to a showdown between Batman and the Joker, which is what
everyone wanted from Suicide Squad anyway.

I'd not be surprised if things even out a bit now they're up to 2 films a year consistently, but the 3-year gap between MoS and BvS represents a lot of time they could have been world-building in.

RT reviews are coming in. They are not good. Looks like a rental (at best) for me.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

Rushing is definitely the core of the problem though. The Green Lantern movie is a prime example. It's really not at all interested in itself and really, really wants to give us the Sinestro Corp War (arguably its hoping for Blackest Night I'd wager, but maybe not).

What it really really needed was to be a smaller initial movie. Hal gets the ring, fights off alien mence, movie ends with the Corps showing up to drag him off to training and open up the larger universe. Second movie is training day in space with Sinestro being the villain. Third movie is Sinestro Corp War where he goes after earth in retribution for losing his status in the GLC. Instead we got a weird attempt to shove those first two arcs of the plot into one film and some shoddy execution on top.

The same can pretty much be said of BvS. It's trying to launch a new universe by rushing through a mashup of two extremely popular story arcs via a major villain who isn't originally a part of either. How much of the issue is WB and how much of it is on Snyder (who clearly loves 80's superhero deconstruction) is kind of up in the air, but ultimately they just haven't managed to plant a movie as solid as Iron Man to build from.

 Paradigm wrote:
I think part of the problem DC had was the time it took them to actually get going, and the fact that forced them to play catch up more and more.

If they'd released MoS in 2013 then gone straight onto, say Wonder Woman the following year, Batman the year after that (last so it's furthest possible distance from The Dark Knight trilogy), they could have still released BvS in 2016 as JL-light/Trinity film but without having to set up WW and Batman in the movie as well... Then, use the second 2016 and first 2017 film to introduce, say, Green Lantern and Flash, then bring it all together with Aquaman and Cyborg introduced in JL in 2017. (and the next two to get solo films). It's quite a pace, but no faster than the early years of the MCU.

Suicide Squad seems an odd one to have picked so early, but perhaps it did it's job in establishing that this is a properly comic book universe and that the metahumans are everywhere... Perhaps, though, it would have been better served as a Batman story first and foremost a la the Assault on Arkham animated movie, which while focusing mainly on the Squad does ultimately come down to a showdown between Batman and the Joker, which is what
everyone wanted from Suicide Squad anyway.

I'd not be surprised if things even out a bit now they're up to 2 films a year consistently, but the 3-year gap between MoS and BvS represents a lot of time they could have been world-building in.

They had their hands tied with a lawsuit involving Superman that prevented them from going forward with any movies.

It wasn't until the judge said they could go ahead and proceed with their movie plans that they were able to make movies.

But yes, they have been playing catch up since then and have been cutting corners to make up the time they lost. The problem is that it is obvious they are cutting corners and the movies haven't been that great, with the exception of Wonder Woman.

I think Wonder Woman was a hit for them because they were forced to take their time with it, not cut corners, and make sure she was being served with her proper respect, and it showed. Wonder Woman proved they can do this right, that they can make these characters work but they have to just take their time in the execution.

If WB just admits they are tardy and focus on making sure they have quality over quantity they will show they are to be taken seriously.
But no, they want the fast cash now and they'll worry about how it works later. That's where Marvel has them beat. Marvel has released some rather meh movies following up to the Infinity War movie, but that's OK. They have people looking forward to the next movie by the time their current movie is released. So while a character might not have performed well in the box office, it keeps them relevant for the bigger picture.

Part of Wonder Woman's success is that they somehow just found Diana wandering around in the world and got her to be in a movie, similar to RDJ as Tony Stark.

 Frazzled wrote:
RT reviews are coming in. They are not good. Looks like a rental (at best) for me.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

Eh, whatever?

This wasn’t going to be ‘well reviewed’ almost ‘no matter what’, I feel.

I’m trying to avoid spoilers, so I haven’t read any yet but I’ve skimmed titles and grades, and I’ve seen reviews that liked it, some said it was ok, and some that said it was absolute garbage.

It looks like you’re going to get out of it what you went in looking to get.



So...

 Frazzled wrote:
RT reviews are coming in. They are not good. Looks like a rental (at best) for me.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/justice_league_2017

Last night, preview numbers had it at 48%, now it's officially down to 40%? Huh. Even at 40%, it's still better than BvS and SS.

But yeah, we're down to a rental now. From the public library. After it's FREE.


OTOH, Thor is at 92% and still showing...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well, sure, now that we've seen how the MCU works and pulls Avengers money...

However, if you're pitching against the aftermath of the MCU Hulk and Thor movies, then IM is beginnner's luck. In that context, a DoS-based standalone Superman trilogy makes perfect sense. Remember, the timelines for movies are long before they ever start filming, much less hit the screen. I don't think Warner or Zack ever intended Superman to feed into JL when he started filming MoS. In fact, JL probably wasn't even a concept until after the Avengers hit.

No, that's right...MoS was intended as a standalone. It was the brainchild of the Nolans and Goyer, and Chris Nolan has famously said that he thinks superheroes work better in individual films than shared universes. BvS and JL were mostly Snyder, with some Goyer.

And I agree that IM and RDJ were strokes of luck in many ways. Favreau established the Marvel film template, and RDJ just kept the whole enterprise together and going with the force of his personality. They've diversified more since, but even CAPTAIN AMERICA: Civil War was Tony Stark's movie. He was the only character with a legit arc.


While "rushing" is an easy narrative, I really don't think WB's problem has anything to do that, and it doesn't really fit the facts anyway. Marvel had their team-up after only five movies, and two were IM. JL is the fifth movie in the DCEU. And Marvel needed to take a little more time because the characters they had left weren't A-list, and other than the Hulk really weren't in the public consciousness.

Nothing about WW's success had to do with taking more time with the film. It was shot and conceived in a normal timeframe. What it had was a director with a clear vision for the film (she had lobbied WB for years about a WW film) that matched what WB needed from it. They could have given Snyder two more films before JL, and we still would have had divisiveness just because the dark and deconstructionist story he wanted to tell wasn't what a fledging universe needed or general audiences wanted.

That's a fair point. A bit part of DC's problem is just that they haven't been able to find a style of movie that works for anyone beyond Batman. Neither Superman Returns nor Green Lantern really connected the way Batman Begins did and the second try with Man of Steel hit similar problems.

A lot of that comes from the sense that DC films have that same lack of authenticity that you feel from Fox and Sony. Marvel puffed up a lot of their early work under the idea that they were comic writers making movies and there's probably something to that. A lot of other studios seem to be pretty focused a lot on what they believe works in movies and don't trust comics to translate to film directly.

I don't think that's an unfair statement to make to be honest. Especially when you compare and contrast it with Legends of Super Flarrow and the animated films.

Although, maybe things will improve a bit going forward. It looks like, while JL still has its flaws, there was still a partial course correction going on coming out of WW's success.

 LunarSol wrote:
A bit part of DC's problem is just that they haven't been able to find a style of movie that works for anyone beyond Batman.

... or Wonder Woman, surprisingly.

Surprisingly, but also importantly.

Because had WW been gash, the usual bellends would’ve put it down to ‘wimmins’

And this is some one who saw WW, and thought Gal Gadot was entirely wooden and unconvincing.

Well there was bound to be one or two people who thought that, right?

 Compel wrote:
I don't think that's an unfair statement to make to be honest. Especially when you compare and contrast it with Legends of Super Flarrow and the animated films.

Although, maybe things will improve a bit going forward. It looks like, while JL still has its flaws, there was still a partial course correction going on coming out of WW's success.

Yeah, like I said earlier, even some of the mixed reviews say that they'd like to see more of these characters and it's a more positive heroic vibe that might better connect with audiences. So although the reviews aren't good, JL might actually get some positive work done for the DCEU in ways that BvS and SS didn't.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
A bit part of DC's problem is just that they haven't been able to find a style of movie that works for anyone beyond Batman.

... or Wonder Woman, surprisingly.

I have a feeling that Aquaman is going to be good too. James Wan is a real pro who just knows how to make a popular, successful film.

Well, here's CNNs thoughts.
Alpha, and others not wanting to read anything don't open.



My thoughts (Hidden in spoilers).

 Alpharius wrote:
Well there was bound to be one or two people who thought that, right?

Which bit?

And I think we also need to collectively recognise the frankly phenomenal achievement of the MCU.

We’re now seventeen movies in, and all of them have performed. Whilst I’m a fan of the franchise, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge it has issues with internal consistency. Low points for me? Thor, The Dark World, and Dr. Strange.

But even the low points have been enjoyable enough.

Barring the James Bond franchise (and for me, the Moore era. Just a opinion!), not other franchise has enjoyed anything like the success Marvel has.

That to me suggests it’s a genuine one off. You cannot repeat or emulate that success. It just happened. There’s no rhyme or reason to it. They just got incredibly lucky,

Yes we can absolutely contrast and compare DC and Marvel’s efforts...but as to how Marvel have kept it up this long? it’s Just One Of Those Things.

 LunarSol wrote:
DC has long had issues with what "darkening" really means. A lot of it is simply due to how much success they've gotten with Batman's reworking in the 80's and some phenomenal deconstruction of the superhero medium in general through works like the Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen. The solution becomes "make Superman like Batman or Dr Manhattan" but that kind of misses the point of deconstruction.

Marvel has had a much better history with Cap (assuming they don't make a Secret Empire movie...). They don't try to reinvent him by giving him personal issues so much as they darken the world around him and challenge him by creating a world that no longer supports what he believes in.

Ultimately that's what lets down attempts to make Supes darker. The more you try to play up the things that make him like other heroes like being an orphan or whatever, but in doing so, you lose the opportunity to use his unique voice to create worthwhile character interactions. So many great stories rely on the contrast of Superman and Batman, so trying to port in the success of one on the other seems like a huge mistake, particularly if you're trying to put them in a movie together.

Exactly. Superman doesn't become more interesting by making him more flawed. The question 'how do make a paragon of virtue interesting?' is not answered with 'don't make him a paragon of virtue'. That's a bad question and a terrible answer.

Superman is interesting because he is a paragon of virtue, and if really need to fit him in to a dark story you can still do that, by putting him in a dark world.

Okay, maybe I'm a bit lost. What made MoS overly dark or grim? It was still an alien raised with homegrown American values and morals who held to those morals. Because he killed Zod? He did that in Byrne's comic reboot after Crisis, named Man of Steel funnily enough.