Jump to content

Superman: Man of Steel


lovecraftian
 Share

Recommended Posts

But you said it yourself-- EVERYONE knows that origin. Everyone's seen it. He's the icon for all super heroes. if somebody is going to see a Superman film they aren't going to sit and wonder how he became Superman. It's just not needed.

 

You're right. An origin isn't really needed. But I want them to touch on it somewhat. It's only right. I'm not saying they should take half the movie to tell it. Three to five minutes is all you need. They could do it during the opening credits.

Agreed. Just because everyone knows it doesn't mean that touching up upon certain aspects of it cannot serve the story in a meaningful way. I get and agree that everyone knows the origin tale so its not needed in full, but I don't think that means you just hit the ground running and never touch upon nor build up throughout certain aspects of this particular adaptation's mythology, which will and should have its own differences here and there to accommodate a feature film franchise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention how exciting they could make the sequence. Sort of like the beginning of each Clone Wars episode, when they recap everything to get you up to speed. Or maybe make it something similar to how the 50s TV show opened, just explaining what Superman could do and where he came from, etc., but in a much more contemporary and adult style. That's how I'd do a reboot. Bring the fun back, you know. I can't see the new movie being like this, though, with Nolan involved. I mean, don't get me wrong. He's made the two best Batman films and there's no doubt he knows his stuff. I just don't want Superman to be dark. I'm hoping whoever he gets to direct will surprise us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Routh was pretty damn good. I think, esp. if Nolan is helping, their best bet is to make Superman his own enemy. Yeah Luthor is a good villan and Brainiac and so forth, and kryptonite messes Superman up pretty good... but his biggest weakness has always been Lois. I think they should focus on Lois being with another man and maybe having a kid ( like in Returns or do it completely new ) and all of that screws Superman up. Makes it hard for him to function and do what he needs to do. I'm not saying it has to be a romance film, but for as Alien as Superman is he is actually the most human of superheros out there. I just think they should focus on that, his emotions and the choices he has to make that affect him and so forth. I still want action, I still want physical danger to Superman ( kryptonite has been done to much, I know it's his weakness but just find someone/thing physically equal/superior to him for once ), I still want stuff blowing up and superpunches and what not. I just think if you focus on the psychological aspects of Superman it would deliver... and you can please some by getting that "dark and gritty" side of him for what he thinks of the human race and how he feels and his jelousy and lust all while putting up a front to everyone that he is the greatest of the great and of nothing but pure intentions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. It's also why I sorta want Routh to get another shot. I mean let's face it, IMO at least, the casting wasn't a problem with Returns. I'd like to see Routh return and I'd love for it to be under Nolan's "new" vision for the franchise. I don't think that having Routh return would push people away from the film, I think that like a Bond film another Superman film could just explode into a new story and barely if at all pay lipservice to Returns.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

That is the exact type of scenario I was talking about.

 

I want Nolan to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nolan via Empire Online:

"Superman is very specifically superpowered and obviously otherworldly; Batman is very human and flawed... there's an elemental feeling of power in the iconography of those characters. To me that's originally because they stood alone. I need to hang on to that in my imagining of them."

 

Thank god he feels the way I do.

 

It will not last. No licensed characters adapted for film keep their so-called "universe" together as the single vision/rule book forever, unless one actually owns the characters (think George Lucas). That is a great thing, considering Nolan's gargantua misunderstanding of the characters. Unlike Nolan, who seems to need a shrink and some uppers ASAP, the long creative legacy of Superman and Batman knowing and working together has been a very popular hallmark of the comics (even merchandising) for decades.

 

There's no mysterious reason: alone, each operates in their own skin or half-isolated reality; together, the long-established contrasts speak to the fantasy appeal of readers identifying with the concept of accepting and functioning well with an opposite--much like people are required to do in real life with relatives, co-workers--anyone. Their opposing views end up complimenting each other in the long run, but this never prevented friction between the characters. Again, it mirrors many a real life situation and explains why the friendship/occasional partnership worked.

 

Nolan strongly reads like a faction of comic fans who (in my view) project personal loner issues on Batman, therefore they (predictably) resent one of the pillars of his developent in the form of Robin (Grayson, or his successors) his membership in the JL, and--more to the point--his relationship with Superman. This view stands in complete contrast to the elements which led to Batman being a multi-generational success. As i've said elsewhere, he (Batman) is not some Fly Machine mix-up of Death Wish's Paul Kersey, the Punisher and Count Dracula--desperately in need of the same drugs once perscribed to Mike Tyson. Inarguably, if he was bearing the traits of the aforementioned characters, he would have died off decades ago, as that sort of behavior has more in common with the reasons people stop to watch a bloody car wreck (shock), than a character who (in reality) was popular for generations due to his human heart overcoming a horrifying seminal event with his crusade--but retaining his humanity through it all.

 

Again, WB can let Nolan wreck this generation's flagship DC films but no filmmaker who adapted comics--not Donner, Burton, Raimi or anyone else who scored big in an influential and/or financial sense--leaves a permanent marker to the degree that another version cannot simply reboot the film adaptations. It is currently happening to Spider-Man, and it will eventually happen to Batman...hopefully for the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok-- so I get it. you don't like Nolan. i was going to point out that his version of Batman is one of the most favored among fandom at this stage, so your opinion is a minority-- but that made me realize something. As more superheroes hit the screen, the argument of it straying from the "definitive" version carries less and less weight because of all the permutations.

 

Batman is probably the best example of this as he's a character that's been seen in so many different versions it's hard pressed to say one version is correct over any other. The easiest argument, would be to say that the comics version is the original, therefor it is the benchmark-- but after 60+ years of comic continuity that character has been treated so many different ways, by so many different writers an artists, each of them has a life of their own.

 

If you really wanted to be a canon Nazi about it, anything other than Bob Kane's version of Batman would be considered "untrue."

 

Think about it. How many versions of Batman are there at this point?

 

Bob Kane's, which evolved into the Golden Age Batman

The Silver age Neil Adams Batman

The Silver age Dick Sprang version

The redux, post Frank Miller silver age Batman

 

cause each of those eras are "legit" as the comics, but are very different tonally.

 

Or what about contribution to the "official" comics canon by Alan Moore, Grant Morrison, Jeph Loeb, Denny O'Neil or Ed Brubaker who all significantly changed the Mythos.

 

Then there's of course the comic strip version.

Various animated versions up through the 80s.

My personal favorite version of Batman-- the Bruce Timm animated series

Then there's The Batman

The other Timm stand alone releases

Gotham Knights

few dozen video games

The old serials from the 30s

The 60s TV show

The film continuity started by Tim Burton

 

My point, is that widening the exposure gap doesn't really dilute the character from a marketing stand point. Batman is a franchise in and of himself. It's ceased to be "rebooting" and has become "a vision/version."

 

To that effect, Nolan can an should do whatever he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd personally make a live action version of the animated Superman/Doomsday feature. It didn't need the backstory, it was just action with a solid plot and great character development.

 

And if I had the option I'd just do it as a follow up to Smallville, Welling wouldn't be the best Superman but, Rosenbaum and Durnce have proven they can nail it already.

 

That's just me though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has read maybe 5 comic books in my life tops, and I dont mean 5 series I mean 5 issues, I have to say that having Superman and Batman in the same movie would be stupid, flat out stupid. Im fairly certain most non comic fans would agree. Ill use as evidence the following. Me and my friends all like the Iron Man movies and are looking forward to The Avengers, however we think Thor is friggin stupid. The other main characters are all results of like modern science in some way and then you have a damn Norse God? Its stupid. Just like having a real person and an alien who has super powers in the same movie is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has read maybe 5 comic books in my life tops, and I dont mean 5 series I mean 5 issues, I have to say that having Superman and Batman in the same movie would be stupid, flat out stupid. Im fairly certain most non comic fans would agree

 

Actually, they would not, since in the cultural sense, even non-readers have a basic understanding that these well-saturated characters exist in the same "world."

 

 

Me and my friends all like the Iron Man movies and are looking forward to The Avengers, however we think Thor is friggin stupid. The other main characters are all results of like modern science in some way and then you have a damn Norse God? Its stupid. Just like having a real person and an alien who has super powers in the same movie is stupid.

 

You do realize that the Marvel movies are fantasy adventures, right? In the broad definition of fantasy, anything can happen and work together as "believable": in the fantasy sense, otherwise, we could not accept the never-gonna-happen-IN-REAL-LIFE/not-supported-by-any-real-science characters who turn into sand, take on the abilities of spiders, run at speeds beyond that of light, cast bolts of electricity, shrink to microscopic size, etc. Moreover, if you feel that way, then you would never want to see a Green Lantern in a JL movie, since the very nature of how his ring responds to thought is about as fanciful and scientifically implausible as twitching your nose to make magical things occur, yet GL and Superman can work with so-called normal characters--the reason fo accepted, successful team-ups for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok-- so I get it. you don't like Nolan.

 

To be clear, I like his Bat-films, but I do not like his philosophy regarding Superman in relation to Batman.

 

 

i was going to point out that his version of Batman is one of the most favored among fandom at this stage, so your opinion is a minority

 

It is temporary, just as Connery's Bond was once the worldwide standard for that character, then Moore's interpretation was accepted. For twenty-two years, Adam West's Batman was the best known/loved version commited to film--then along came Burton's Batman, then that was the accepted version...and now its own time has passed. Two generations' view of a live-action Hulk took the form of the Universal TV series, and that too, is no longer the case (for better or worse).

 

 

Batman is probably the best example of this as he's a character that's been seen in so many different versions it's hard pressed to say one version is correct over any other. The easiest argument, would be to say that the comics version is the original, therefor it is the benchmark-- but after 60+ years of comic continuity that character has been treated so many different ways, by so many different writers an artists, each of them has a life of their own.

 

If you really wanted to be a canon Nazi about it, anything other than Bob Kane's version of Batman would be considered "untrue."

 

You're actually reinforcing my point, which was:

 

...but no filmmaker who adapted comics--not Donner, Burton, Raimi or anyone else who scored big in an influential and/or financial sense--leaves a permanent marker to the degree that another version cannot simply reboot the film adaptations. It is currently happening to Spider-Man, and it will eventually happen to Batman...

 

,...which is not a stand against change, but an acknowledgement that Nolan's anti-Superman + Batman position is a temporary one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, plenty of people were still lamenting Sean Connery up to the Pierce Brosnan days. Hell, even now. There is sometimes a big difference between "accepted" and "preferred". New versions/portrayals of characters can come along and be accepted by fans, but that doesn't mean they're as happy with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'm not really clear on how someone can accept a guy getting frozen in a block of ice and coming back to life fifty years later or another guy able to grow big, green, and indestructible when he gets mad, but in that same context find life from another planet farfetched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who has read maybe 5 comic books in my life tops, and I dont mean 5 series I mean 5 issues, I have to say that having Superman and Batman in the same movie would be stupid, flat out stupid. Im fairly certain most non comic fans would agree

 

Actually, they would not, since in the cultural sense, even non-readers have a basic understanding that these well-saturated characters exist in the same "world."

 

 

Me and my friends all like the Iron Man movies and are looking forward to The Avengers, however we think Thor is friggin stupid. The other main characters are all results of like modern science in some way and then you have a damn Norse God? Its stupid. Just like having a real person and an alien who has super powers in the same movie is stupid.

 

You do realize that the Marvel movies are fantasy adventures, right? In the broad definition of fantasy, anything can happen and work together as "believable": in the fantasy sense, otherwise, we could not accept the never-gonna-happen-IN-REAL-LIFE/not-supported-by-any-real-science characters who turn into sand, take on the abilities of spiders, run at speeds beyond that of light, cast bolts of electricity, shrink to microscopic size, etc. Moreover, if you feel that way, then you would never want to see a Green Lantern in a JL movie, since the very nature of how his ring responds to thought is about as fanciful and scientifically implausible as twitching your nose to make magical things occur, yet GL and Superman can work with so-called normal characters--the reason fo accepted, successful team-ups for decades.

 

 

I dont want to see a Justice League movie with Green Lantern or without Green Lantern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Apparently there's a shortlist of directors going around...

 

I'm told they have begun meeting with a short list of directors for the job of directing Superman, the picture which will be financed by Warner Bros and Legendary Pictures. On the list: Unstoppable's Tony Scott, Let Me In director Matt Reeves, Battle: Los Angeles helmer Jonathan Liebesman (who just got the Warner Bros/Legendary job of directing Clash of the Titans 2), Duncan Jones, who just directed Source Code, and Sucker Punch helmer Zack Snyder.

 

 

Deadline.com

 

If Nolan submits one of the names from the story, it'll either be Jones or Reeves. Two have the least amount of baggage but the vision and skills to pull off the project; I think Nolan might favor Jones for similarities but that doesn't take anything away from Reeves who I think would put out a good film and one that wouldn't polarize the audience. Zack Snyder, who I feel is a great popcorn filmmaker a few notches below Cameron but miles orbiting over Bay, would make a kick ass Supes film if there was a lot of punching!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping Giacchino wouldn't channel the Williams score too much, similar to how he did Mission: Impossible or Star Trek. In fact, I would hope we'd get something entirely new altogether which would be fine considering how beautiful the new theme for Kirk & the Enterprise turned out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.