Zemeckis has some things going for him:
1. He knows how to tell a sentimental story. Superman is a difficult franchise because not only does it have to accomplish all the same action and heroic beats that other superhero films do without any of the oh-so-easy dysfunction as a shortcut to characterization, but people actually expect to be inspired, uplifted, or affected by Superman films in a way other franchises don't have to deal with. Zemeckis continues to do stories that tug at the heart strings.
2. He's comfortable with visual FX and collaborating. Let's face it, many of the Superman sequences are going to be all but computer generated and the truth is that a lot of directors out there don't know how to handle that... they're brilliant shooting practical shots or capturing certain FX, but once computers get involved they're lost. I think it goes without saying Zemeckis is comfortable with computer generated content. The same goes for action sequences and choreography. A lot of directors just aren't cut out for action because it's a different language. The Wachowskis, for example, happily collaborated with Hong Kong experts and the final product showed the fruits of both their expertise. Zemeckis similarly knows how to delegate, but still influence, action sequences. He doesn't try to do what he can't but he also isn't completely hands off.
3. He wants to do it. The WB has been courting a number of directors but there's always been something worrisome about that to me. As a mercenary effort anyone can tell or do a Superman story (or Batman for that matter)... but it takes a certain kind of person to want to do it, a kind of person who considers themselves a "Superman Guy". For example, Bruce Timm is, unquestionably, a Batman Guy. That doesn't take away from his talent and ability, but it does mean that his adaptation of Superman is going to miss a certain quality that only with the intervention of Superman Guys (like Alan Burnett; or sometimes Dini) and fan input did they start to capture. The best films are the product of passion (see Peter Jackson, etc). And this is the biggest knock against Synder I think... he doesn't consider himself a Superman guy, declined the job once before, and even now doesn't really have confidence he can do it... if the WB can convince him to do it with a big enough pay check, I'm sure he'll be professional... but will he be passionate?
4. He can do all-ages, he can do mythology. Again Superman is a film that needs to have a certain level of broad appeal that even Batman can't have. You need to be able to take a class of Sunday School kids to see Superman (who, presumably, need to see Dark Knight on their own time) but also a bunch of jaded teens too. Obviously a lot of his fare has been all-ages so he knows how to dial into that audience... but at the same time he's not above violence, sex, and mythology (see Beowulf). The mythology aspect to me is particularly important since I think a good Superman film isn't so much about making him a spin on the Marvel mutant- isolated, different, dysfunctional, rational, etc.- but being good at telling a great fable or myth... much like Forrest Gump. It's more about the heart and right beats than rationality many times (see plot-hole-filled Back To The Future).
The main downsides is that it's been a long time since he's done a live action film which might mean he's out of date with modern film making... leaning too heavily on computers could be detrimental. Additionally, who's to say his interest isn't merely a cash in- wanting to be attached to a big franchise- rather than any passion for the project itself or in his own career... young or unestablished directors are often looking to perfect their craft and prove themselves on the most number of screens... an older director might be looking for a retirement fund and seeing this as a Batman Forever "opportunity".
Log in to comment