Behavior Intervention Plan Template: Fill & Download for Free

These are the too many elements of a lesson plan. Some districts have twenty items on a lesson plan, and you learn how to write that lesson plan for the sake of doing it.When I plan lessons for myself, I have a four question checklist:1. Today's Objective (Curriculum)2. Agenda/Activities (Instruction)3. How will I assess where the students are in the process? (Formative Assessment/Data)4. Remediation/Help for students who are going to need additional interventions. (Differentiation)I find it refreshing how similar this list is to the other answers here. It reaffirms that a lesson plan isn't a four page document with jargon-speak and Bloom's Taxonomy Verbs.: For new teachers seeking a deeper set of questions than the four question checklist :1.What is today's main idea; the main objective students are learning today? (How does this flow with the sequence of lessons in your calendar?2. What is my agenda for the day, the sequence of activities that will get the students to learn today's objective?What physical materials are needed for those activities?What processes need to happen behind-the-scenes for those activities to go off seamlessly? (Things need stapled, items need labeled, seating charts, printouts, double-check technology)How will I engage student interest? Are there memorable moments that I need to make sure happen to give class that little extra spark? Demonstrations, a metaphor, a story, a minute-long video.3. How will I measure where students are in their learning process: will I give oral questions, journal topics, self-check questions, a quiz? What are my plans for responding to that feedback?4. Finally, a well-designed lesson should fit the needs of most of my students.Who are the students in the classroom who aren most left out of my one-size-fits-all lesson plan, and what interventions do they need for class to fit them? (extra assignment for the gifted, assistance to struggling students, reteach a skill, catch up for a student who was absent, behavioral intervention, ESL translated text, special seating)I find that these questions are the questions I find I am asking myself every day.Other elements of a lesson plan template are helpful but non-essential, or worse, a waste of time. (Don't tell your administrator that! Unless they agree :-)

I was the director of a child psychiatry day treatment program for about ten years, and during that time, collaborated with a special education teacher to develop a template of recommendations from which we could select to produce an educational discharge summary for the school of the children we treated and educated. The special education teacher had Orton-Gillingham certification.Many of the children had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The recommendations are NOT intended as a one-size-fits-all cookie cutter approach; rather, as we wrote a customized summary of each child’s classroom needs, this served as a reminder and sometimes a loose framework:School recommendations are as follows:a. A highly structured, self-contained classroomb. Xxxxx’s ability to tolerate distraction appears to be low; he was unable to remain on-task given any extraneous noises in the classroom setting. Therefore, a teaching environment with reduced stimulation is recommended.c. A Functional Behavioral Assessment should be conducted, and used as the basis of a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP). This should then be incorporated into an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) or implemented as part of a “504” plan.d. A low teacher-pupil ratioe. A consistent behavior management program with clear academic and behavioral expectations, concrete reinforcers (points, stickers, stars, privileges), and consequences (not earning reinforcers, provision for time-out and isolation as needed)f. In-school mental health services including an in-school crisis intervention team are recommendedg. Provide Speech and Language evaluations to assess receptive language deficitsh. Conduct an academic and cognitive assessment to determine appropriate special education and related servicesi. The following Accommodations/Supplementary Aids are recommended:i. Chunking of tasksii. Explicit Teachingiii. Extra Response and Processing Timeiv. Sentence Frames and Starters for Writing Assignmentsv. Modeling and Repetition of Informationvi. Repetition/Overlearning of Skillsvii. Restating, Paraphrasing, and repetition of directionsviii. Prelearning of Classroom Materialix. Notetaker (peer or adult)x. Access to computer/laptopxi. Use of a daily/weekly planner to keep track of individual assignments and long-term projectsxii. Modified Homeworkxiii. Human Reader/Audiotape or compact disk recordingxiv. Extended Timexv. Reduced Distractionsj. When instructing Xxxxx:i. Provide one task worksheet at a timeii. Pair visual cues and models with oral instructioniii. Seat him in the front row or place him at a study carreliv. Monitor and supervise his progress towards task completionk. Praise efforts at mastery as well as actual achievement of mastery.l. Maintain regular contact with home to monitor educational, medical, family, or social issues which may affect Xxxxx’s school functioning.A full Occupational Therapy evaluation should be conducted in the school system to assess functional areas, fine motor skills and anger management.In addition to understanding overactivity, impulsivity, and inattention as functions of “ADHD,” our practice was informed by sensory integration theory; that was part of the reason an Occupational Therapy evaluation was a consideration. Poor graphomotor skills, hearing problems, executive functioning issues like a small working memory or poor internal timekeeping (and a number of other executive functions) can contribute to a classroom problem in ways that resemble ADHD or tapped to address the condition. It goes without saying that depression, anxiety (related to trauma or not) and other issues have to be ruled out before jumping to conclusions about the nature of a classroom disturbance, but this framework can be mined for useful ideas.

It’s no surprise making a Superman movie is hard. Making any movie is hard.Even when filmmakers get it right — as they did in 1978’s Superman: The Movie — it’s still very hard to do. That film was not just the first modern superhero movie ever made, it also had to invent the template for superhero origin cinema completely from scratch. Superman: The Movie was so successful at creating the template, we still see the same template used 40+ years later for superhero movies. But making the film was a long, difficult process full of trial and error that took years to accomplish. In fact, it almost fell apart a few times, due to how hard it was.Likewise, Superman II also got it right, creating the template (again, totally from scratch) for successful superhero sequels. But it, too, was an often painful and time-consuming process. So painful and so time-consuming, in fact, that production halted and director Richard Donner was replaced on the project, with a majority of footage changed and reshot by director Richard Lester.Those two Superman films, as great as they are, represent my initial point — making movies is hard, and making good movies is even harder. Making good movies that are also successful and well-received is the hardest task of all.People who think filmmaking is relatively easy, or that “cracking the code” for how to tell a story and put it on film, need look no further than their favorite filmmakers for proof of just how hard it is to make any movie, let alone good ones. Because even the greatest filmmakers will tell you each project is hard work, and they all have projects that wound up unmade due to this or that obstacle and/or struggle during the creative process and the attempts to get a movie produced. And all of them will have at least one (usually more than one) movie that failed in some way, be it in terms of quality or box office or critical reception (or all three, in some cases).Think for a moment about how many movies come out each year that you actually hear about. Now consider the fact there are several hundred movies released every year — this year alone, there have already been about 210 films released at the box office, and last year (in 2018) there were 874 films released at the box office. Most of those movies are not successful, either critically or financially.And despite the seemingly large number of movies that get made and released each year, there are also a lot more that are made and never released, or that get made but only released direct-to-video, or that are halfway made but never completed, or greenlit by a studio but never actually go into production.Why? Because filmmaking is hard — it’s hard to come up with a story, hard to get anyone to read it, hard to get anyone to like it, hard to get anyone to finance it, hard to get anyone to make it, hard to get anyone to distribute it, hard to get anyone to screen it, and hard to get anyone to watch it.Now, to get to specific questions regarding adapting Superman to cinema, there’s a lot of points to unpack here, so bear with me as I lay out some information for our discussion…We think of Marvel Studios as proving superhero films are easy to make and get exactly right, because they’ve had a terrific run of high-quality content. MCU films have been financial hits, well-reviewed, and popular with audiences. However, people often forget the MCU kicked off with two films in 2008, and one of them was a flop — while Iron Man blew everybody’s minds and scored blockbuster box office results and critical acclaim, The Incredible Hulk didn’t even earn back its budget.There is also at least one other weaker MCU film, in terms of flaws and more mixed reactions from critics — Thor: The Dark World. Granted, that film still earned healthy box office results and mostly positive reviews, as well as solid audience grades. But it is also widely regarded as one of the “worst” entries in the MCU library (for the record, I like it even thought it’s flawed, but I do also consider it among the weaker entries in the MCU).But it’s true that overall Marvel has had enormous success at making superhero films, and even their “worst” movies are still pretty good and — aside from the glaring exception of The Incredible Hulk — successful. The reason for that is, Kevin Feige oversees all of the development of Marvel movies, according to a specific plan of action based on years of experience with superhero filmmaking and careful study of what worked best for successful superhero movies in the past. Feige also looks at the vast library of content in Marvel comics and draws from the most successful and acclaimed stories, and has developed a balance between the creative vision of filmmakers and the creative vision of the MCU as an overarching entity with parameters and demands.Marvel benefits from the fact their comic book characters and stories were mostly all designed from the outset as existing within the same world, their characters crossing over and teaming up frequently in comics. They used real-world locations and historic events — the Cold War, the Civil Rights Movement, popular pop culture moments and history — as a setting for Marvel storytelling. So their stories resonated with audiences who recognized their own world in the comics, who related to the issues and conflicts and questions these Marvel heroes faced each month.And the Marvel characters themselves were unique in comics, created as flawed human beings with personal lives and problems just like regular people. Marvel stories used larger themes about our society, our world, and the human condition to tell personal individual stories about their characters — which reflected precisely the way all of us in real life perceive, relate to, and react to events, too.So in these regards, Marvel really is unlike just about any other large storytelling entity with a large library of content to pull from. Those advantages were perceived by Feige at the outset, and he understood the strengths and how to use them to maximize their advantage over other brands and IP in the marketplace. I cannot stress enough how different Marvel’s position was, and that it was just a matter of the right person (Feige) finally coming along to recognize it and to know how to utilize it for a successful film studio.But yes, it is still hard even for Marvel Studios to make movies. The fact that it’s hard doesn’t stop them, of course, and doesn’t prevent them from succeeding, because they are extremely good at it and have perfected their approach using their unique library of IP.DC Comics, by comparison, did not create most of their foundational iconic superhero comics as coexisting in the same world. Each was created separate from the others, in a world that specifically reflected that character’s themes and aesthetics. Some of them directly contradicted one another in a general sense — Wonder Woman’s assumption that Greek Gods are real and her interventions in Wold War II, for example, were at odds with the sci-fi stories in Superman that also saw him involved in World War II with different results.When some DC heroes began to sometimes make guest appearances in one another’s comics, there was no attempt to maintain consistency or establish a canonical set of rules and history. They just told whatever story they wanted to tell in a given comic, and if it didn’t make sense alongside the solo comic adventures of other heroes, nobody seemed to care.In addition, DC superheroes were idealized and rarely portrayed as having human flaws and personal problems that drove storytelling. DC stories were typically using the individual characters to tell stories in which the larger themes about the world and human condition were dominant (the flip side of Marvel’s approach noted above, notice). Because of this, and because of the way each hero was created in their own different type of world, fitting them all together into a single shared continuity with any consistency was much harder than it was for Marvel’s heroes, even though DC had several extra decades in which to attempt it.One last point about the distinctions between Marvel and DC characters — Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and the Flash were all created between 1938 and 1941. Almost all of Marvel’s superheroes, though, were created in 1961 or later, with most of the foundational Marvel heroes debuting during the 1960s and early 1970s.Notice there is a major difference between the eras in which each publisher’s characters first appeared, with Marvel’s not just being a couple of decades more modern but also (crucially) having been created and published during a turning point in U.S. history amid war and social uprising and movements for justice and equality. DC, in contrast, had their most popular heroes all created and released during an era of a different sort of social and global upheaval and change.DC characters embody concepts of rule of law represented by authority figures, of more moral absolutism and less moral ambiguity, and of idealized physical and mental characteristics in heroes (they are attractive, powerfully built, smart, charismatic, etc). The DC characters’ costumed personas dominate the storytelling, while their personal lives are more secondary to their identity as costumed heroes. While there has been more focus on personal lives of DC heroes in recent decades, it is still not equivalent to the foundational and perpetual focus on personal lives found in Marvel comics.(Note: Batman might seem to undermine the notion of DC characters embodying the concept of “rule of law” and “authority,” but his entire conception is rooted in the assumption rule of law should be absolute, so in its absence it’s up to a powerful idealized individual to step forward and instill his own semblance of rule of law where none exists.)Marvel characters embody concepts that question authority, that presume flaws in society and institutions of power, that recognize moral ambiguity and reject absolutism, and that often portray heroes as far less than ideal physical and/or mental specimens. Character flaws and failure, strange appearances, physical challenges, and general misfit status are common among Marvel heroes. They are meant to remind readers of ourselves, and the costumed personas exist for the action adventure moments in stories but the real-life identities of heroes usually take center stage in Marvel comic books.In terms of storytelling, each of those approaches has advantages and disadvantages. When we further think about each approach in the context of their era of conception, that adds additional advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Good storytelling will maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages, and there are plenty of examples of both good and bad storytelling from both comic book companies.But what constitutes “failure” of storytelling between the two approaches is very different, and the potential for mistakes creating a domino effect turning even the advantages into disadvantages is a greater danger within the DC framework than the Marvel framework. This is not a criticism of DC, it’s simply a recognition that the foundational background for their shared universe and the way their characters evolved over time within the context of that foundation and general set of elements embodied by DC characters leaves less room for acceptable error or deviation from established norms.This is precisely because of premising the DC characters, their world, and their themes on idealized concepts about heroes, authority, rule of law, and moral absolutism. The perfecting of heroic qualities and associated necessity of sureness, rightness, and success means deviation from those characterizations usually renders the heroes unrecognizable as themselves. So when Superman “turns bad,” he simply doesn’t seem to BE the same guy anymore. When he is intolerant or angry, it feels even more unacceptable than similar behavior from other characters. We can’t relate very well to DC characters when they fail or behave in flawed, less idealized ways, because we’ve been taught to perceive them in specifically idealized portrayals, and the heroes themselves represent the concept of absolutes.Look at the DC comic book stories where the heroes split into “teams” and fight each other, where Superman and certain other characters become resentful and angry and violently authoritarian. It usually feels entirely out of character for them, and the resulting stories are often appealing more to readers’ sense of curiosity about who is stronger and so on, rather than a significant strong appeal to our sense of who these characters really are and what they stand for. Contrast that with Marvel comic book stories about heroic characters battling each other, like the Civil War series for example, and how neither side has to violate their core beliefs or “turn bad” to still remain recognizable and relatable to us. Indeed, often times in Marvel comic book stories, the conflicts between heroes are some of the strongest representations of their inner values and character traits.Not all deviations from the standard norms have to be so extreme (i.e. turning into authoritarian armies doing battle across the globe), though, to still validate these points. If Superman cheated on Lois Lane while they were married, or if Superman used his powers for selfish personal financial gain, it would still feel like some degree of a betrayal of who he is as a person. Spider-Man or Iron Man or Fantastic Four, though, can and have sought personal financial gain from their superhero status over in the Marvel comic books, and it speaks directly to aspects of their characters we relate to. This isn’t a double standard or unfair, by the way, although some fans would no doubt assert that it is — this contrast arises not from pure personal preferences among readers, but rather from the very specific choices of standards and tone and themes DC has consistently presented in their comics for 70–80 years for their core characters.Which brings us to back to the point about Superman in movies. It’s arguably easy to see and understand what makes Superman tick as a character, and to identify which aspects of his personality and stories have the strongest mainstream appeal. It’s also not too hard to identify the best stories from the comic book source material, and what makes them so good.But notice, this is a reverse order of sorts — we are talking about being able to look at existing creative work and identify its value and content. That’s very different from knowing how to properly and successfully create that content from a storytelling perspective. Knowing what is needed for a good story is different from knowing how to use that knowledge to actually create a good story. Most people can recognize what they like about a good movie, but that doesn’t mean they can tell a good story themselves, let alone take the necessary components of a good story and assemble them properly to make something new. Even good storytellers can have difficulty at this sometimes, and the more limitations and boundaries exist, the harder it becomes to tell that story.Superman is a character who, while having many avenues to approach his character and lots of great potential for good new stories adapting many fantastic stories from the comic book source material, still does exist as a character defined by those narrower foundational elements for DC heroes. The fact that he has such boundaries and is such an idealized character has given rise to a great deal of debate about the precise nature of his identity — is he Clark Kent pretending to be Superman? Is he Superman pretending to be Clark Kent? Is he Kal El pretending to be both Superman AND Clark Kent? Is each of those various “identities” a reflection of different key aspects of his persona so that no single identity alone is him, but all of them together are his true self? Heady questions, and the fact is each of them has merit and speaks to different foundational and evolved elements in Superman’s mythos.But therein lies a problem. When you choose one approach for Superman’s identity, by definition you exclude the others, and that cuts off a large number of alternative avenues from which to approach his character and stories, while also causing some segment of fans and mainstream audiences to disagree with your choice for how to portray him. Which, in turn, leads to less relatability for those particular viewers, or you have to specifically incorporate storytelling elements to try to win them over and address the various concerns and arguments for the alternate identity approaches.Because I assure you, most average mainstream moviegoers have at least a simplistic basic assumption about whether Superman is “in disguise” when he’s Clark Kent, or when he’s Superman, depending on which films they’ve seen and which films they liked best. And the films that most resonated with audiences and succeeded at telling the best Superman stories are the ones that navigated this complex terrain in clever, inclusive ways. Which is — to beat a dead horse — VERY HARD TO DO.Look at Superman: The Movie again. Who is the “real” identity?Clark Kent at the Daily Planet seems to clearly be an act, yet he also is the persona the character uses most in his life, and it’s where we get most of the personal emotions and reactions from him.Meanwhile, Superman is an idealized costumed persona that doesn’t actually dominate his time or personality; but it’s also when he sheds his sillier behavior as “Clark” which is intended to hide his true nature, and it is as Superman that he can be more of himself without having to keep his guard up.And then we also see that while he was raised by his Earth family and loved them dearly, he also reconnects with his Kryptonian past and embraces that identity and history, too, and when asked where he comes from he says “Krypton” rather than “Kansas,” even though he also says he fights for the “American way” and in the sequel (written and filmed simultaneously with the first film) he literally erases his Kryptonian elements to become fully human and live as a regular Earthling.So I ask again, who is the “real” identity in the movie? The answer is complex and gets to the heart of the question “why is it hard to make a Superman movie?” beyond the broader fact that it’s hard to make any movie at all.Reeve and the filmmakers managed the seemingly impossible in Superman: The Movie — each person who watches the film can come away with a valid claim that any one of the personas is the “real” identity, or that all three combined represent his true self. Because Reeve made EACH AND EVERY identity true and unique and real, in its own right, while walking a delicate line to balance them so no individual identity negates or overrides any other, no identity lays claim to the title of being the only “real” one. It is a triumph of storytelling and performance, masterfully and perfectly converging to maximize the potential of both. If you look at Superman II, when Clark chooses to strip himself of his powers and live as a normal mortal Earthling, he still somehow embodies all of the various identities at once, and it’s not just that they all finally combine together into one distillation of himself — he is each of them, fully, simultaneously.And that’s the core of the matter right there, and you have to really study the story and performance to fully understand it, but once you see it you cannot unsee it. The fact is, every one of the various identities is the same in Reeve’s films, they simply pretend they are different. But his personality and self are so well-defined, so powerfully revealed, that it doesn’t matter how much Clark acts clumsy, he’s still the same guy; it doesn’t matter how much Superman deepens his voice or shows off his powers, he’s still the same guy; and it doesn’t matter how much Kal-El speaks to his father and hangs out in his crystalized arctic retreat, he’s still the same guy. Clark is Superman, Superman is Kal-El, Kal-El is Clark, because he grew up and was raised and became one person who might dress differently sometimes or be more/less assertive, but all are the same identity because he is a complex man who harbors different ideas and attitudes and personal experiences and ancestry all at the same time.Which is why he’s like all of us, and why so many of us could easily relate to him in those two films. And that is some seriously difficult, complicated, nuanced storytelling and filmmaking. It’s why Reeve’s performance is considered by many people — me included — to be the most iconic and best of any superhero movie. He seemed to be several different people at the same time, yet also the same person at all times, simultaneously. He has clear, fully formed traits and feelings and beliefs, while also allowing for distinct personal reflection of ourselves depending on which identity we most relate to and perceive in him. He has charm and charisma, he has our trust and our support.And that’s why other Superman movies, even ones we might personally like or love too, don’t seem to capture the imaginations of the larger mainstream public or have failed to garner widespread critical praise. Because no other film has succeeded so well at portraying Superman, and not for lack of trying. It’s hard to do it without knowing all of the ingredients AND having those ingredients in-hand AND knowing how to precisely mix them together in the right amounts at the right times AND how to tell a story that maximizes all of those ingredients to let them compliment and contrast and combine in the exact right degrees at the exact right times.Superman: The Movie and Superman II did all of those things. Other Superman movies have done some of those things, but not all of them, and not as well as those first two films did.It is not that Superman is “too old fashioned” or “too powerful” to be relatable and relevant for modern audiences. We hear those reasons/excuses expressed sometimes — be it individually or all together — to try to explain why Superman movies haven’t been as successful or well-received after the first two movies. But there are plenty of old fashioned superheroes and plenty who are immensely powerful who are all also relatable and relevant.The reason those other heroes (like Captain America, or Hulk, or Thor, or Captain Marvel) are still relatable and relevant is a combination of having broader range of characterization and storytelling to pursue (harkening back to the points about the difference between Marvel and DC characters) plus simply having the right people who know how to combine the right ingredients and storytelling to achieve the best possible outcome, while also successfully navigating the broader general fact that it’s hard to make any movie, about anyone or anything.Also, the themes and ideals Superman represents are not at all irrelevant to modern audiences. If anything, those ideals and concepts — social justice, standing up against corruption and warmongering, fighting bullies and abusers, giving people hope and inspiring faith that despite rising authoritarianism and bigotry we can and will unite to defeat those evils and save our future — are more needed and powerful today than they’ve been since the end of World War II.After the first two films, Superman has yet to have the right combination of perfect actor, perfect story, and perfect collection of creators within a larger context of a plan for the character and his place in a shared cinematic world (or, alternately, a plan for a full standalone series going forward). The characters’ post-Donner films have had one or two of the elements, but never all of them, and never in the right amounts together with the right other factors coming to bear too.Man of Steel had a great director and had some good ideas in it, but it also had flawed ideas in it and a weaker script, while the planning for this new iteration’s future was subjected to changes and disagreements even while that first film was being made. And while Henry Cavill is a good actor who “looks” the part of Superman, he also doesn’t honestly have the same sort of humility and charisma Reeve for example brought to the character. Reeve’s Superman was quick with a smile, instantly likable, gentle, and approachable, even while also seeming confident and strong. So again, the issue is having some of the ingredients but not all of them, and notably not some of the really most important ones for making the character relatable and recognizable to mainstream global audiences.Batman v Superman was a deconstruction of the Superman concept, and of DC’s foundational assumptions and ideas discussed above. It took them apart to see how they worked and what they meant, and then reassembled them into something both recognizable but also evolved, making them stronger and bringing them back to their iconic status once again. However, the deconstruction itself was intense and brutal, and questioned the very nature of Superman, challenging the audience’s own assumptions and even our preferences for the character and his world.While many of us liked or loved Batman v Superman (I personally love it), that sort of extreme deconstructive analysis was too far beyond what those characters ultimately allow for in a mainstream context. Most viewers are unfamiliar with the nuanced evolution of DC characters during the 1980s and 1990s era, during which the foundational assumptions for the DC world were turned on their head, notably the idealization of the characters themselves and overall trust in authority and rule of law. And the problems I mentioned earlier, regarding how DC’s driving themes and assumptions make it hard to tell “hero turns bad” and “morally ambiguous” stories without seeming to contradict core principles and defining characteristics of the heroes, instantly arise when trying to tell that sort of story within a framework of multiple films carrying the deconstruction forward and to greater extremes.But another big problem with Batman v Superman was lack of a firm plan with backing by the studio, because executives like former Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara wound up undermining Zack Snyder’s storytelling and creative vision from the start, demanding major cuts to the story that essentially gutted Superman’s character arc and removed crucial plot details. Then, further weakening the entire foundation of the DCEU, those executives also shredded Snyder’s plans for subsequent DC movies. So again, the proper combination and degrees of ingredients wound up lacking, for a variety of reasons.I think Batman v Superman represents a way to tell DC superhero stories that reflect more complex, evolving interpretations of the characters, and I think it’s a tremendous accomplishment. However, I have come to realize it is not necessarily the version of those characters best suited for live-action adaptation on film, and especially not the version of Superman that audiences expect or want to see. Batman has generally had more room to explore moral ambiguity in films, and to use his individual approach to “rule of law” and “authority” as a way to tell stories questioning those assumptions and themes (as The Dark Knight did, and as Batman v Superman likewise reflected).Making a Superman movie is indeed very hard, beyond just all of the general ways moviemaking and storytelling are hard. It needs the right actor who can portray all of the nuances of each aspect of the character’s identity, in ways making each resonate with audiences so every persona is the same yet also being different, within a story making great use of the differences and similarities between each identity and allowing them all to reflect the truth he is one person with one identity that manifests itself in different ways.The story has to be fun, exciting, amusing, emotional, uplifting, heartwarming, and thrilling. It needs a sense of community, it needs a sense of romance, and it needs a sense of power and strength. It needs to posit questions about the nature of that power and its proper use, and then it needs to answers to those questions in ways appealing to a broad mainstream audience. It needs to be faithful to the best aspects of the comic book source material, but also be willing to take risks and deviate from the source material when necessary and offer something refreshingly new that still feels timeless.A Superman movie has to do all of that, and it has to make it all look easy while it’s doing it. Not many people can pull that off, which is why so few Superman movies have fully succeeded at it.