Tank Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Except the Doomsday part. Superman shouldn't die because HE'S ****ING SUPERMAN. Anyway, I think that an adaption of All Star Superman would capture the heart and soul of what Supes is about perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Ifto Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 They should create a storyline where Superman doesnt hide behind Clark Kent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 ****ing comic books! COMIC BOOKS. No ****ing I have to call them graphic novels bull**** because it doesn't make me feel like such a geek. COMIC ****ING BOOKS. Anyone that actually thinks they sound less geeky by saying "graphic novels" is completely lying to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 If anything, the term makes us geeks sound like sad geeks who are in denial that we read comics. I'm a simple, happy geek who is proud to say that I read comics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 But at the same time, I think a film version, unless it is animated, owes it to itself to do something different. If they aren't then what is the point? Obviously if it is too much of a departure fanboys bitch-- but I don't get the need to see literal interpretations of comic books when they themselves are constantly being reinvented and retconned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Me too! +1 I just am tired of the pretentious and obnoxious use of the term graphic novel and the tired reverence of Superman = Jesus etc etc. Superman smiles, Batman doesn't. That's how you approach those franchises' personalities in film form. As for Doomsday, yeah he's a one note nothing. However he can be used and used to awesome effect. Superman doesn't even need to die. It doesn't have to be a literal translation of that story. Nope. It just needs to be true to the characters, the universe and be awesome to watch. It's a different scenario when you are adapting say... Watchmen. Why? Because that, THOUGH A ****ING COMIC BOOK, is a one shot story. There is nothing else. You want to do a Watchmen movie you do that story and you do your damnedest to be true to it. But yet while you don't have to be literal, you must pay so much more attention to the source. With Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, the X-Men etc etc all you need to do is get the universe and characters to feel right and make whatever plot you want. Just do it and remember you aren't making Ghandi or Gone With the Wind or Taxi Driver etc etc you are making a ****ing comic book movie. Aim to achieve greatness, for sure, but stop with the pretentiousness about the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Solo Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Actually, that's all the reasons I resent Bryan Singer's effort. He was pretentious about his source, only in this case it was the previous movies. He treated them like some sort of untouchable gem among films, and in order to make a new Superman film, it had to fall in line with those. And I can't stress this enough but I love those original movies probably just as much as he does. He paid too much attention to the previous movies that he was unwilling to try something new. That above all else is why I feel a reboot is necessary. I don't want The Godfather, I too just want a comic book movie, but something new and modern would be nice is all. The throwback idea has already failed, there's no reason to try and adapt around the failure, in my view. Just tell me its not dark and its abandoning the dated continuity and I'll anticipate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I agree. I just think we can keep Returns cast and move forward. I don't think keeping that cast and the setup means we can't now spin into something more modern and fresh. I believe it is lazy writing to abandon it and reboot. Returns setup is usable and the cast was fine. Lex can still evolve too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I know I said I'd be fine if they brought Routh back for the reboot (and I guess I still would be), but I'd totally understand if they got a new actor for the role, just to avoid confusion for the people who think it's a sequel to Superman Returns. I say cast someone a little older than Reeve and Routh were when they first got the part (mid-30s/early 40s) who looks and acts like Superman, as if he stepped out of the comics. Someone like Jon Hamm from Mad Men, for instance. Also, someone who will treat it as seriously and earnestly as Reeve did. Stick as close as possible to who Superman is. That means no super-stalking, crying, or shying away from the "Truth, Justice and the American Way" credo. Definitely nothing dark, either. This is freakin' Superman. He isn't supposed to be dark. We need a real Superman movie now, more than ever, in this day and age of tortured anti-heroes. Someone to actually look up to and count on to always do what's right, to act like and actually be the good guy. Look, Superman ain't hard to do. He ain't hard to figure out. Why is WB having such a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally Q Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Someone like Jon Hamm from Mad Men, for instance.I've been talking to people at work about Jon Hamm for a while now and no one knows what the Hell I'm talking about. Jackasses won't bother watching Mad Men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Someone like Jon Hamm from Mad Men, for instance.I've been talking to people at work about Jon Hamm for a while now and no one knows what the Hell I'm talking about. Jackasses won't bother watching Mad Men. Just for fun, here's how Jon Hamm might look as Clark Kent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 He looks like a baker or a candlestick maker. etc etc There is no dun dun daaaaaa SUPERHERONESS in that look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NumberSix Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 I've been talking to people at work about Jon Hamm for a while now and no one knows what the Hell I'm talking about. Jackasses won't bother watching Mad Men. He's also been on a couple of recent episodes of 30 Rock. Okay, so that's probably even less helpful... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 From Superman Homepage: February 19, 2009: Wachowski Movie Rumor Debunked AgainSuperman Returns A few days ago HitFix.com posted a report debunking the Ain't It Cool rumor about the Wachowski Brothers taking on the next Superman movie. Now SlashFilm.com also says it's untrue... Remember that report that showed up on AICN last week claiming that The Wachowski Brothers had been offered a reboot of Superman? Sorry to get you guys all excited but I have just gotten confirmation from two independent sources that the report was completely false. I don’t know if an interview with James McTeigue actually aired on RTL1 or not (I’m guessing not) but The Wachowski Brothers have definitely never had any talks with DC or Warner Bros to helm a Superman film. This is confirmed. Thanks to Eli Gutierrez for the link to this blog item. All you Wachowski Bros. haters can breathe a sigh of relief. All of it was b.s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally Q Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I've been talking to people at work about Jon Hamm for a while now and no one knows what the Hell I'm talking about. Jackasses won't bother watching Mad Men. He's also been on a couple of recent episodes of 30 Rock. Okay, so that's probably even less helpful...Yeah, even I don't watch 30 Rock (though that may change at some point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Biff from the Future Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I would love to see Brandon back as Superman but I doubt it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boba Sweat Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 having skipped the entire thread and never read a superman comic in my life, here's my take supermans a bit gayhe's camp and cheesy by natureyou try to darken him up a bit like most modern superhero films try to and you take away what makes him superman thats why smallville worksyou take out the biggest campest gayest element (ie superman) and you have more freedom to expand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Actually, Boba, the fact that it has taken Clark so long to become Superman on Smallville has been a point of both frustration and anticipation for all fans of the character. The "no tights, no flights" angle grew tiresome a loooong time ago. I still like the show, but I'm ready for Clark to put on the costume, stop whining, and become Superman...as are most fans of the show. As for Superman being "gay," it's clear you don't know much about him. (To be fair, you even admitted as much.) Superman is, quite simply, the coolest superhero ever created. Sure, there have been campy takes on him over the years (Batman too), but, at his most serious comic book form, it doesn't get any better than Superman. He's got an iconic costume (and I mean that sincerely), awesome powers everyone wishes they had, a legendary origin, and, most importantly, he's probably the one true superhero that lives up to the term in its purest form. Superman is the epitome of what it means to be a hero and a good human being, despite not even being human at all. There's nothing campy, cheesy, or "gay" about that. He'll always be my favorite superhero. I do agree with you about not making Superman dark, though. Superman ain't about darkness. Quite the opposite. Superman is about hope. I want to see a bright, colorful Superman movie with Superman acting like the true hero and leader that he's supposed to be...the same way people regarded Christopher Reeve's portrayal. Say what you will about the Reeve movies, but his Superman was always spot-on...even when the movie he was in was not. Take Superman IV, for example. While many regard it as the worst of all four in that series, Reeve was still great to watch in the role. Remember his speech when he vowed to rid all the world of nuclear weapons? That's Superman to me. Of course, he ultimately learned that it isn't his place to play God, but his presence and portrayal of Superman when he stood before the leaders of the world in that film is the way Superman is supposed to be. Someone who inspires us to be better than what we are and to work together for the greater good. We need a hero like that now, more than ever...especially after depressing depictions of superheroes in movies like Watchmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepinGiant Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Superman is the epitome of what it means to be a hero and a good human being, despite not even being human at all. *Ahem* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I guess I stand corrected! What a jerk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Spoon Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 And of course how could we forget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 All you Wachowski Bros. haters can breathe a sigh of relief. All of it was b.s. YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercury Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 Will Superman Get Unleashed?Source:/FilmFebruary 20, 2009 /Film snuck into Legendary Pictures' password protected company site, which lists Superman Unleashed as one of the company's upcoming films in development. Legendary Pictures was one of the companies responsible for bringing director Bryan Singer and Warner Bros. Pictures' Superman Returns to theaters in 2006. The site says the listing includes the following synopsis: "Ramping up the action of its esteemed predecessor, the sequel to Superman Returns promises to raise the stakes and take the audience to heights of action that no other superhero movie can achieve." So will Brandon Routh return as Clark Kent/Superman? Only time will tell... Um...whaaaaat? So now they might be making a sequel to Returns...again? They can't make up their minds! Or somebody's giving false information. Eh...I'm fine either way. I don't care if it's a sequel or a reboot. I just want another Superman film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Solo Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 They made too big a deal over announcing they were rebooting the franchise for me to take a quick one sentence synopsis at absolute face-value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Human Torch Posted February 21, 2009 Share Posted February 21, 2009 The reboot deal was a false reboot put out by Harry at AICN, JS. This has been confirmed by the Matrix Brothers who went on record saying they have never been in contact with the WB to do a Superman film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts