SUPERMAN: Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More from [Archive]

Herr Logan

05-19-2006, 11:57 AM

Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More
From
SUPERMAN

This thread is a spin-off of the original ‘Safe Haven for Those Who Demand More (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6248395#post6248395)’ from the Misc. Comics Films forum. That thread was open to the discussion of all superhero properties, and I have branched out into several property-specific ones so we can better keep track of people’s posts and have more linear and organized discussions about each superhero property.

Listed below are several posts links from the original Haven that pertain to the subject of this particular thread. It is not a complete list, and anyone who wants to link or re-post something they thought was interesting is welcome to do so.
I recommend reading these posts before posting your own ideas, but it’s not a requirement.
I ask that while people can respectfully point it out, they not act harshly when a user makes a new post that contains material that is similar to what has already been posted in either the original Haven or this particular thread.

This thread, like its predecessor, is dedicated to the brainstorming and discussion of ideas pertaining to how faithful and optimally entertaining superhero movie adaptations could have, or still could, be made. This is also a place for analyzing what has come before and how that could be a basis for ideal film adaptations of the various superhero properties we know and love, more closely based on the source material. The topic of this thread is Superman.

I think certain movies already made could be taken as a basis for fully faithful adaptations, as in a large portion of a particular movie could be left mostly the way it is with specific alterations to what held that movie back from being better. Even some of the obvious changes to the various mythos could be used to enhance the story or execution of an adaptation that could still be considered faithful by discriminating, analytical and demanding fans. If there hasn’t been a movie made of the superhero(es) discussed in this thread, then ignore the last two sentences.
I want to discuss the theoretical possibilities present in both the original source material and the existing adaptations, and how those could be put into new productions that completely nail both the "spirit" and the essential details of these mythologies. Plots, script, character traits, costumes, even casting decisions are open for discussion. This is ultimately for the purpose of creative discussions for their own sake, although I would be delighted if it inspired high-quality, faithful fan scripts beings written (Dragon has written some excellent Spider-Man screenplays, for example).

All other non-comics media are valid topics as well (live action and animated TV series, video games, etc.). Again, it's fine to use ideas from existing products (casting, plot elements, dialogue, props/effects, etc.) as a basis or part of an idea for a "new" product if the new product would be significantly more faithful, even though it would be implausible for a rebooted franchise (a la "Batman Begins") to include these same elements in reality; reality is mostly irrelevant here.
It is unlikely that these ideas will lead to a better movie being made; not unless one of the thread participants ends up being a big-time producer or someone important in the business reads this thread. This is for us, the fans. We spend a good deal of time on the Hype, and it really doesn't accomplish much in terms of tangible results anyway. That's okay, since the point of this forum, presumably, is for the purpose of imparting information, critiquing superhero products, and discussing ideas. This is for people who are intelligent, imaginative, and passionate and have ideas to share conforming to the stated topic.

Ground Rules:
If you believe that the movie adaptations already made are perfect or good enough and do not need revision or analysis, then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, so be on your way and don’t intrude where you have nothing to offer. Do not waste our time with conformist platitudes. Do not come in here and defend film decisions that are considered flaws by contributing posters, unless you have another aspect in mind that does need changing and post an equal or greater portion of text discussing a criticism or suggesting an idea for an existing or hypothetical product that is very faithful to the source material.
We’re here to talk amongst ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with the spirit of this thread is in no way obligated to read any of the content herein or reply. Any of the behavior I described above that occurs here is trolling, pure and simple. This thread isn’t about argument and hostility. The only personal criticism that should occur is that which is directed toward the producers (meaning anyone involved in the production in any way) of preexisting superhero products, and even that should be kept reasonably limited, since everyone who truly belongs in this thread is assumed to have some level of disagreement with said producers, sometimes to the point of resentment. We need not spend excessive time on blaming them for their failings, but don’t hold back your true feelings on those screw-ups either. Disagreement between rule-abiding posters is fine. Just keep it civil and within the guidelines. Or else.

Nobody is allowed to use terms like “fanboy,” “nerd,” “purist,” “hater,” or anything like that in a derogatory manner toward other posters or comic fans in general in this thread. The word "whining" and the like-- unless used with regard to a character in a movie, comic book or TV show (ex. “Spider-Man was quite the whiner...”)—is forbidden, as is “nitpicking,” and anything else intended to bully anyone into complacency and acceptance of existing products. The phrase “impossible standards” and anything to the effect of “movies and comics are different mediums, so there have to be changes,” “the general audience will not accept the same things comics fans will,” and “people want to see realism,” if not accompanied by a massive amount of faithful and potentially marketable ideas meant to compensate or work around these alleged “facts,” are also strictly forbidden.
It is okay to suggest minor deviations from the source material for this topic, as long as the majority of the ideas you put forth—or are simply replying to and agree with—are consistent with the source material and/or significantly more faithful than previous existing adaptations.
Do not belittle classic superhero or villain costumes. Do not use the word "panties" to describe those shorts that some heroes wear over their tights. It's fine to describe a costume as "tights" as long as they actually are and you aren't belittling anything. It's not okay to use the word "Spandex" to describe a costume from the comics that is not actually made of it, unless you're suggesting that Spandex, Lycra, etc. be used in the production of the movie, or maybe suggesting Neoprene or something else over it. Using the term "gay" in any derogatory sense whatsoever in this thread will result in an immediate report to a moderator, without warning, whether or not you've read this.
Again, it’s okay to disagree with a person’s criticism of a movie if you have another one to share, but do not post remarks about an existing or real-life upcoming film if you have no significant complaints about any of the productions being discussed.

I hope the guidelines are clear. Everyone is welcome to contribute or comment, as long as they follow the rules and don’t make any criticisms that are not relevant to the thread. You either belong here or you don’t, and that choice is up to you , so have respect enough to let the environment herein reflect the title of this thread.
Anyone who violates the rules or causes trouble will be promptly reported.

Thank you for your cooperation.

It is recommended, but not strictly required, that you supply a unique title at the beginning of each new post, especially when it isn’t a reply to another’s post. This will help in identifying the topic of each new post at a glance and finding specific posts with the Hype’s search engine. You can resend older posts in the appropriate thread and add titles to them.
Examples:

“Hunter Rider’s Iron Man concept #1”
“Herr Logan’s ‘Batman: Dark Knight Detective’ video game,”
“Everyman’s Captain America movie series concept #1”
“Zev’s Daredevil TV Show concept”
“Logan & Zaphod’s Batman movie series concept.”
Welcome to the Safe Haven. Enjoy!

Here are a few posts from the original thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6248395#post6248395)to check out. Make sure to check the quoted portions, as several of these posts are two-for-one deals (which is why so many of mine are here, because I almost always reply to people’s posts and frequently use quotes from other posts). Also, most of these links lead to single post pages, but if you open those pages and click on the thread title link in the upper right corner, it will take you to that post in the full thread, where you can see what came before and afterward. If I’ve confused you and you need help navigating the links, just ask.

Superman Haven Posts

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6351732&postcount=178
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6351853&postcount=180
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6377455&postcount=219
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6780283&postcount=306
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6788244&postcount=321
http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6897737&postcount=428

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

--George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists"

Herr Logan

05-25-2006, 11:34 AM

In case anyone wants a good argument to use against people who automatically and thoughtlessly shoot down the idea of using a more faithful superhero costume than filmmakers are likely to use, read this post (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8943722&postcount=6).

It's more or less air-tight, except for the fact that value judgements on these kinds of things are completely subjective. However, If an anti-source material studio apologist states a value judgement as if it has concrete value, then my argument is completely air-tight.

I'm proud of it because it's probably the first time I put that concept together in cogent words that didn't go on for pages and pages of sprawling, tangential text. I guess the secret to relatively succinct and logical posts for me is to be pissed off and succumbing to the effects of Tylenol PM. Weird...

:wolverine

Hunter Rider

05-25-2006, 11:56 AM

Herr Logan

05-25-2006, 12:55 PM

To start off my Superman idea i just wanted to lay the basics
Metropolis in my version would be similar to Washington in Minority Report only with a bit more colour
Superman would be established in Metropolis and already be enemies with Lex Luthor who would be a successful businessman looking to get into politics
Sounds good. :up:

No one would know his identity...
Except for Ma and Pa Kent, right? Out of curiosity, would there be any reference to Lana Lang (the real one, not that 'Smallville' bull*****)?
Would you feature an origin story or just mention his origin in passing somewhere in the dialogue?

Would there be a Fortress of Solitude? If so, would you throw in that enormous key Superman uses to open up the Fortress?
I know I would. :O

...and him and Lois would not be together in any fashion
Would there at least be an attraction between them (Lois could be into Superman and not Clark, or both)?

As annoying as love interests usually are in superhero movies, I personally feel it's imperative to at least give a nod to the most iconic super-relationships and flirtations. A few examples include Superman & Lois, Batman & Catwoman (as a flirtation), Spider-Man & Gwen Stacy (& maybe Mary Jane, in a later sequel, if the franchise were to last that long, and Cyclops & Jean Grey (not Wolverine and Jean, ever!).

Also, I feel it's imperative that, again, as annoying as it is in superhero movies to see this as a rule, Lois Lane must be rescued from mortal danger by Superman at least twice in the first movie of a franchise. Why? Because she's the character who started the whole stupid trend. I say stick it with Superman and don't do it in any other superhero movie franchise unless it's essential to a decent plot.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Not trying to be critical, just searching for answers and spouting unwarranted thoughts whenever the opportunity arises.

Villain-wise i intend to use Metallo with Lex(I believe Lex always needs to be there in some fashion)
Well, it practically is his city, right? Unless he's already in the White House, there's no reason not to show Lex scheming against Superman in Metropolis. If he is in the White House, then he should be shown scheming from there. He schemes, Luthor does!

Thanks for posting, Hunter. I look forward to hearing more. :supes:

:wolverine

Jakomus

05-25-2006, 05:09 PM

Okay, I know the rules state that I have no place here if I think the current film incarnation is doing a good job, and I completely agree with that rule, but really i'd only change a few things about Superman Returns. I mean, this is a thread for demanding more, not just wanting something better.

I think Superman needs a better costume. The one used in the film is alright I suppose, but it could easily be better. The neckline shouldn't be so tight. There should be a straight line above the shoulder, so his neck muscles are showing. The collar would be completely covered by the cape attatchment, so the collar doesn't look like a leotard. The trunks need to be a teency bit higher to get rid of Routh's hourglass figure. The boots need to resemble Reeve's in shape, and they need to be a little higher.

Routh's hair should be more like Jim Lee's Superman, the curl would look natural, and Routh's face will appear much more adult looking. His eyebrows could do with a trim.

This manip is pretty similar to what I have in my mind:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f254/james-knighton/br.jpg

Herr Logan

05-25-2006, 08:52 PM

Okay, I know the rules state that I have no place here if I think the current film incarnation is doing a good job, and I completely agree with that rule, but really i'd only change a few things about Superman Returns.
No, it's perfectly fine to post here if you're satisfied with what you know about a movie and make a suggestion for the improvement of a single aspect. You didn't challenge anyone's criticisms or actively defend the entirety of the production, so there's nothing objectionable about that. If you did challenge a criticism, that would still be okay as long as you supplied a significant criticism of your own.
You're acting inside the rules, and I thank you for observing them.

I mean, this is a thread for demanding more, not just wanting something better.
Well, I probably should have named it "Safe Haven for Those Who Demand Better," because that basically is what I meant by "... Demand More," but I don't think I'll change the titles of the various Safe Haven threads unless three or more people show they want that. I gotta bother a moderator and so forth...
Yeah, anyway, I want more and better, and above all, significantly more faithful adaptations.

I think Superman needs a better costume. The one used in the film is alright I suppose, but it could easily be better. The neckline shouldn't be so tight. There should be a straight line above the shoulder, so his neck muscles are showing. The collar would be completely covered by the cape attatchment, so the collar doesn't look like a leotard. The trunks need to be a teency bit higher to get rid of Routh's hourglass figure. The boots need to resemble Reeve's in shape, and they need to be a little higher.

Routh's hair should be more like Jim Lee's Superman, the curl would look natural, and Routh's face will appear much more adult looking. His eyebrows could do with a trim.

This manip is pretty similar to what I have in my mind:
That picture is much better than the actual movie costume (which I think looks like absolute crap, and Routh looks like he's modelling a bad costume in a Halloween catalogue).

I'd like the belt-line to be even higher. I don't want a Superman who looks like the one on the first season of the show, 'Justice League' (that figure was completely out of control), but I'd like an even more broad-chested look. If not the belt-line, than the chest emblem could be even bigger, or both.

Did you (or whomever did the manip) change the jaw/chin shape or anything else about the head, aside from the hair? If it is, it's definitely an improvement. I'm still not very happy about those eyes (it's right below the eyes, mainly, like he's got bags or something), but the face overall much better. He looks like a real man, and only a teency bit goofy.

Welcome to the Hype, welcome to the Haven, and thanks for posting, Jakomus. :up:

:wolverine

Jakomus

05-26-2006, 09:30 AM

I'd like the belt-line to be even higher. I don't want a Superman who looks like the one on the first season of the show, 'Justice League' (that figure was completely out of control), but I'd like an even more broad-chested look. If not the belt-line, than the chest emblem could be even bigger, or both.IMO this belt-line is perfect. I think any higher would just look ridiculous. If the chest emblem was to get too much bigger, we'd have to get rid of it being raised, and I don't want that. I think it's the neckline that will get you the results that you want. It will make his shoulders wider, which would in turn widen the chest. The manip doesn't show that change.

Did you (or whomever did the manip) change the jaw/chin shape or anything else about the head, aside from the hair?Supersebas morphed the expression and widened the neck. I'm still not very happy about those eyes (it's right below the eyes, mainly, like he's got bags or something)That's just the poor picture quality. Routh doesn't usually have bags under his eyes.

Welcome to the Hype, welcome to the Haven, and thanks for posting, Jakomus. :up:

:wolverineThanks!

Hunter Rider

05-27-2006, 10:33 PM

Sounds good. :up:

Except for Ma and Pa Kent, right? Out of curiosity, would there be any reference to Lana Lang (the real one, not that 'Smallville' bull*****)?
Would you feature an origin story or just mention his origin in passing somewhere in the dialogue?

oh yeah Ma and Pa would know but no one else should find out,i doubt i would use Lana or much of Smallville as the idea im brewing is set in metropolis for story purposes
The origin would be something i would try to use a brief flashback for

Would there be a Fortress of Solitude? If so, would you throw in that enormous key Superman uses to open up the Fortress?
I know I would. :O

Sorry,my story idea focuses around Lex,espionage and the corridors of power so i don't see the FOS fitting in

Would there at least be an attraction between them (Lois could be into Superman and not Clark, or both)?

As annoying as love interests usually are in superhero movies, I personally feel it's imperative to at least give a nod to the most iconic super-relationships and flirtations. A few examples include Superman & Lois, Batman & Catwoman (as a flirtation), Spider-Man & Gwen Stacy (& maybe Mary Jane, in a later sequel, if the franchise were to last that long, and Cyclops & Jean Grey (not Wolverine and Jean, ever!).

Definitely an attraction as their relationship is quintisential,but since this is a movie with an established Superman i think her fondness of Supes will have grown into admiration and she is starting to have feelings for Clark

Also, I feel it's imperative that, again, as annoying as it is in superhero movies to see this as a rule, Lois Lane must be rescued from mortal danger by Superman at least twice in the first movie of a franchise. Why? Because she's the character who started the whole stupid trend. I say stick it with Superman and don't do it in any other superhero movie franchise unless it's essential to a decent plot.
I agree,i already have an idea of where to fit one in,a sequence that see's Lois covering a "Luther running for Senate press conference" that is hijacked

Just my thoughts on the matter. Not trying to be critical, just searching for answers and spouting unwarranted thoughts whenever the opportunity arises.

Always interested in input:up:

Well, it practically is his city, right? Unless he's already in the White House, there's no reason not to show Lex scheming against Superman in Metropolis. If he is in the White House, then he should be shown scheming from there. He schemes, Luthor does!

Indeed!the master manipulator http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif

Thanks for posting, Hunter. I look forward to hearing more. :supes:

:wolverine

Sorry it took me so long to reply,more soon:up:

Herr Logan

05-29-2006, 02:18 AM

oh yeah Ma and Pa would know but no one else should find out,i doubt i would use Lana or much of Smallville as the idea im brewing is set in metropolis for story purposes
The origin would be something i would try to use a brief flashback for

Ah.

Just to make this perfectly clear, I wasn't in any way suggesting that any content or themes from the WB show 'Smallville' influence your story ideas. That show is trash and does not properly represent the Superman mythos.
I meant Smallville as in the town in the DC Universe, presented in the comics. You probably knew that, but I just want to make sure.

Sorry,my story idea focuses around Lex,espionage and the corridors of power so i don't see the FOS fitting in

The Fortress of Solitude has corridors of power. Lots of 'em. :(

Definitely an attraction as their relationship is quintisential,but since this is a movie with an established Superman i think her fondness of Supes will have grown into admiration and she is starting to have feelings for Clark

Sounds good.

I agree,i already have an idea of where to fit one in,a sequence that see's Lois covering a "Luther running for Senate press conference" that is hijacked

Excellent.

Always interested in input:up:

Usually interested in giving it. :up:

Indeed!the master manipulator images/icons/icon10.gif

When he's done scheming for the day, he goes to sleep and dreams about scheming some more!

Dream schemes!!

Sorry it took me so long to reply,more soon

It's cool. Looking forward to it.

Thanks for posting, Hunter. :up:

:wolverine

Herr Logan

06-05-2006, 07:27 PM

I'd like to throw a "Yeah, that's right" out in reference to this post (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235606). This guy took the time to write an essay, the thesis of which is essentially that a movie representation of Superman should and could "realistically" look bigger and more muscular than the new Movie!Superman they cast in 'Superman Returns' actually is. What does he get in response? That Routh is signed on as Superman (because the orignal poster clearly obviously know that, right?) and one person telling him that if he had his way, the original poster wouldn't be allowed to see this movie (post #24). Priceless.

I likes my movie Supermen like I likes my comics Supermen-- looking like Superman, dammit!

:wolverine

Jakomus

06-06-2006, 03:02 AM

Jakomus

06-06-2006, 03:03 AM

I'm curious, Herr Logan. What do you think about Superman: The Movie?

Herr Logan

06-06-2006, 07:50 AM

I'm curious, Herr Logan. What do you think about Superman: The Movie?

That's the wrong movie to ask me about, probably, since that has more nostalgic value for me than probably anything else in the world. I still tear up when I hear that theme song (this will not happen while watching 'Superman Returns' if they use that music, or at least not for the same reasons). That movie was what got me into superheroes in general.

I'd say it's very badly edited (in that it drags on far too long without anything happening in several places) and the deus ex machina ending (reversing the Earth's rotation) is an embarrassment to superhero fiction, but I think a large portion of the movie is well done and it does Superman justice.

Christopher Reeve was great in his role, and when I look at pictures of him, I see Superman. When I look at pictures of Brandon Routh in his costume, I see a goofy Halloween costume model trying valiantly just to keep a straight face.

:wolverine

Jakomus

06-06-2006, 11:04 AM

That's the wrong movie to ask me about, probably, since that has more nostalgic value for me than probably anything else in the world. I still tear up when I hear that theme song (this will not happen while watching 'Superman Returns' if they use that music, or at least not for the same reasons). That movie was what got me into superheroes in general.

I'd say it's very badly edited (in that it drags on far too long without anything happening in several places) and the deus ex machina ending (reversing the Earth's rotation) is an embarrassment to superhero fiction, but I think a large portion of the movie is well done and it does Superman justice.

Christopher Reeve was great in his role, and when I look at pictures of him, I see Superman. When I look at pictures of Brandon Routh in his costume, I see a goofy Halloween costume model trying valiantly just to keep a straight face.

:wolverine
Have you seen the Superman Returns trailers?

Herr Logan

06-06-2006, 11:42 AM

Have you seen the Superman Returns trailers?

I've seen a few, yes.

In the last one I saw, which prominently featured Lex Luthor in all his maniacal glory, they never gave a full body shot of Superman. We could see that pathetic, undersized "S"-shield, but not that skimpy, low-riding bathing suit; at least not a straight shot of it. Gee, I wonder why the trailer editors would want to hide that.

:wolverine

AmbientFire

06-07-2006, 02:32 AM

Herr Logan

06-07-2006, 08:01 AM

I had this idea a long time ago about the Fortress of Solitude that maybe it wasn't a physical place that Superman travels to but kind of like a state of mind or a "place" of knowledge within him that he finds through tapping in to the deepest recess of his own mind - i realized it is very The Matrix-like - kind of like he opens up his mind and taps into the Matrix (and in this case the matrix would be the Fortress of Solitude and it's vast storage of Kryptonian history and knowledge) - and of course it conflicts with comics continuity heavily, but i've always been attracted by the spiritual potential of Superman.

I dunno if this is the right thread to discuss it but for me Brandon Routh's size - or lack thereof as it really is - is kind of appealing to me in the sense that it makes Superman so seemingly ordinary even though he contains all of these insane powers. I've always kind of liked the idea that there is infinitely more to a person than what you see, no matter how ordinary they seem on the outside. But again, that is only my personal opinion.

Ultimately, again, I would like to see more of Superman's mental and spiritual potential in movies and the comics than i have seen so far. Sure, Superman can block a bullet fired by a gunman with his chest, or dodge it if he wants to - But what i would LOVE to see is Superman just staring down the guy, and that would make the guy drop his gun even before he fires a single shot just because he feels the weight of Superman's nature upon him. I dunno if that makes any sense, but i would like to see more of that kind of thing.

By definition, Superman does not resemble a normal man, physically or otherwise. Historically he's consistently been a very large, broad-shouldered man who should probably be portrayed as only being able to keep his secret identity through capable acting talent (as in the character himself, not just the actor playing him). The way Christopher Reeve played Superman, it was at least remotely believable that Lois and everyone else wouldn't suspect him, since he behaved completely differently. The secret identity thing is never going to be truly believable, though, so I only expect something at the level of 'Superman: The Movie' and its sequels. The people in those movies were portrayed as comically ignorant (not just in the latter two), and that's basically what people in the DC universe are like, from what I can tell.

You can share your ideas about a spiritual/mental Fortress of Solitude here, as long as you follow the rest of the rules (ex: don't defend against criticisms of 'Superman Returns' without supplying a significant one yourself; don't argue vehemently that Superman should look like an average person simply because they happened to cast an actor who isn't bulky enough; etc.) and try to keep the majority of your concepts' components faithful to the comics. When you think about it, Superman has a lot of room to work with in terms of what's "faithful to the comics," since there have been so many different incarnations over the years with so many different things happening. If you mixed it up between any Pre-Crisis version and the Post-Crisis version, for example, that would still count.
I never really collected Superman comics (though that character was the one who got me hooked on the superhero genre), so my personal knowledge of continuity is limited.

Anyway, I don't mean to come off as tyrannical or hostile when I mention the rules; I'm just suspicious and on edge of late because I've had two trolls show up in two other Safe Haven threads in the past week or so, one of them being a wolf in cat's clothing (the regular contributors in my threads can't be described as "sheep," since I reserve that word for a different kind of poster). If you're not that kind of person, try not take it personally. I just have to keep my guard up, because some people don't take the opening post seriously or just don't read it all the way through.

What you're saying with that last paragraph (a gunman dropping his weapon after merely looking at Superman glaring at him) sounds to me that Superman, when in costume, is be portrayed as a majestic being whose presence intimidates even hardened criminals at a mere glance. I really like that idea. I see Superman who scares criminals (not to the extent that the Batman does, obviously, since Batman is intentionally all about the fear and Superman isn't known for his brutality) and inspires everyone else.

As for the Mental Fortress thing, would this be a kind of Kryptonian meditation ritual or technique? If so, he'd have to learn about it through some means in the real world (fictional real world, I mean). On the other hand, he could find himself in that state by accident while sleeping, or something to that effect.
If I personally were to implement this idea, I'd have him learn about the meditation ritual through a psychic message recorded in one of the crystals in his spaceship. I'd also have the crystals allow the technique (as in he can't do it without one of them) and let him mentally enter another, smaller plane of existence where the history of Krypton is there for the learning, and Kryptonians have the limited ability to communicate with their departed loved ones. The landscape of this place would resemble the Fortress in the previous Superman films (all crystaline and icy).

That's just my vision of it. It's your idea, so you construct it however you wish.

Welcome to the Haven. :up:

:wolverine

Herr Logan

06-09-2006, 04:24 AM

Singer calls superman his first "Chick flick" (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236170)

Un. Fecking. Forgivable.

Hunter Rider, while I don't believe in limiting choices to "either/or" or reinforcing the reaction formation defense mechanism (that's when a person takes a behavior they don't like and switch to the opposite extreme), I have no doubt when I say that if it was a binary choice between what you said about Superman and Lois "not being together in any fashion" and this love triangle, romance-focus bull*****, I'd go with the former.

If I had to pick between Superman and Spider-Man and say which character's saga could potentially be described as a "love story," if one of them had to be labeled as such, I'd pick Superman, easily. This is only because Superman doesn't have as much going on between his ears as Spider-Man (in terms of uncertainty of himself and questions about morality... I'm not suggesting that Superman is stupid, I just think he warrants less thought bubbles, or in this case, voiceover monologue) and is somewhat more difficult to write an appealling, riveting story for. Even so, there's no excuse for boiling the Man of Steel down into something that could ever be called a "chick flick."
This is one of the things that is so horrible about the show 'Smallville' (a problem that is closely tied to the fact that the writing just being unspeakably bad, but even if it is was anywhere from mediocre to good, it's not an acceptable tone to use... yeah, let's spend years dwelling on the brewing relationship between Clark and Lana so he can just fly off and leave after high school!).

I would actually categorize 'Spider-Man 2' as a "chick flick." Yes, the choices made were that bad. Thanks for following Raimi's perfect example of how not to make a film based on a classic superhero story, Bryan. I know this wasn't a decision made to make money, since a movie about Superman will sell no matter what. This was a conscious, personal choice made by Singer or a screenwriter or someone else. This is someone's idea of pursuing an artistic aspiration. Great job, guys. You really know how to push the envelope when it comes to dissappointing discerning superhero fans who know the difference between sappy, maudlin dramas you can see on TV any day of the week and a big-budget movie about one of the most globally recognizable icons in human history. :down

:wolverine

Jakomus

06-09-2006, 11:06 AM

Singer calls superman his first "Chick flick" (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236170)

Un. Fecking. Forgivable.

Hunter Rider, while I don't believe in limiting choices to "either/or" or reinforcing the reaction formation defense mechanism (that's when a person takes a behavior they don't like and switch to the opposite extreme), I have no doubt when I say that if it was a binary choice between what you said about Superman and Lois "not being together in any fashion" and this love triangle, romance-focus bull*****, I'd go with the latter.

If I had to pick between Superman and Spider-Man and say which character's saga could potentially be described as a "love story," if one of them had to be labeled as such, I'd pick Superman, easily. This is only because Superman doesn't have as much going on between his ears as Spider-Man (in terms of uncertainty of himself andquestions about morality... I'm not suggesting that Superman is stupid, I just think he warrants less thought bubbles, or in this case, voiceover monologue) and is somewhat more difficult to write an appealling, riveting story for. Even so, there's no excuse for boiling the Man of Steel down into something that could ever be called a "chick flick."
This is one of the things that is so horrible about the show 'Smallville' (a problem that is closely tied to the fact that the writing just being unspeakably bad, but even if it is was anywhere from mediocre to good, it's not an acceptable tone to use... yeah, let's spend years dwelling on the brewing relationship between Clark and Lana so he can just fly off and leave after high school!).

I would actually categorize 'Spider-Man 2' as a "chick flick." Yes, the choices made were that bad. Thanks for following Raimi's perfect example of how not to make a film based on a classic superhero story, Bryan. I know this wasn't a decision made to make money, since a movie about Superman will sell no matter what. This was a conscious, personal choice made by Singer or a screenwriter or someone else. This is someone's idea of pursuing an artistic aspiration. Great job, guys. You really know how to push the envelope when it comes to dissappointing discerning superhero fans who know the difference between sappy, maudlin dramas you can see on TV any day of the week and a big-budget movie about one of the most globally recognizable icons in human history. :down

:wolverineI've actually read the entire interview where Singer said it was a chick flick. He doesn't mean it in the way you interpreted it.

Herr Logan

06-09-2006, 11:25 AM

I've actually read the entire interview where Singer said it was a chick flick. He doesn't mean it in the way you interpreted it.

I just don't see how there's a "good" interpretation of that phrase when attributed to an iconic superhero.

NOTE: I made a mistake in the first post about this subject; I said "latter" when I meant to say "former." I've since edited it so it's correct.

:wolverine

AmbientFire

06-15-2006, 11:02 AM

By definition, Superman does not resemble a normal man, physically or otherwise. Historically he's consistently been a very large, broad-shouldered man who should probably be portrayed as only being able to keep his secret identity through capable acting talent (as in the character himself, not just the actor playing him). The way Christopher Reeve played Superman, it was at least remotely believable that Lois and everyone else wouldn't suspect him, since he behaved completely differently. The secret identity thing is never going to be truly believable, though, so I only expect something at the level of 'Superman: The Movie' and its sequels. The people in those movies were portrayed as comically ignorant (not just in the latter two), and that's basically what people in the DC universe are like, from what I can tell.

You can share your ideas about a spiritual/mental Fortress of Solitude here, as long as you follow the rest of the rules (ex: don't defend against criticisms of 'Superman Returns' without supplying a significant one yourself; don't argue vehemently that Superman should look like an average person simply because they happened to cast an actor who isn't bulky enough; etc.) and try to keep the majority of your concepts' components faithful to the comics. When you think about it, Superman has a lot of room to work with in terms of what's "faithful to the comics," since there have been so many different incarnations over the years with so many different things happening. If you mixed it up between any Pre-Crisis version and the Post-Crisis version, for example, that would still count.
I never really collected Superman comics (though that character was the one who got me hooked on the superhero genre), so my personal knowledge of continuity is limited.

Anyway, I don't mean to come off as tyrannical or hostile when I mention the rules; I'm just suspicious and on edge of late because I've had two trolls show up in two other Safe Haven threads in the past week or so, one of them being a wolf in cat's clothing (the regular contributors in my threads can't be described as "sheep," since I reserve that word for a different kind of poster). If you're not that kind of person, try not take it personally. I just have to keep my guard up, because some people don't take the opening post seriously or just don't read it all the way through.

What you're saying with that last paragraph (a gunman dropping his weapon after merely looking at Superman glaring at him) sounds to me that Superman, when in costume, is be portrayed as a majestic being whose presence intimidates even hardened criminals at a mere glance. I really like that idea. I see Superman who scares criminals (not to the extent that the Batman does, obviously, since Batman is intentionally all about the fear and Superman isn't known for his brutality) and inspires everyone else.

As for the Mental Fortress thing, would this be a kind of Kryptonian meditation ritual or technique? If so, he'd have to learn about it through some means in the real world (fictional real world, I mean). On the other hand, he could find himself in that state by accident while sleeping, or something to that effect.
If I personally were to implement this idea, I'd have him learn about the meditation ritual through a psychic message recorded in one of the crystals in his spaceship. I'd also have the crystals allow the technique (as in he can't do it without one of them) and let him mentally enter another, smaller plane of existence where the history of Krypton is there for the learning, and Kryptonians have the limited ability to communicate with their departed loved ones. The landscape of this place would resemble the Fortress in the previous Superman films (all crystaline and icy).

That's just my vision of it. It's your idea, so you construct it however you wish.

Welcome to the Haven. :up:

:wolverine

Oh, no offense taken at all about the 'to troll or not to troll' issue - i was just expressing my position on the subject (expressing a predominantly positive view towards the upcoming movie is not trolling by default i hope - and if it is, i will shut my mouth about the movie) BUT it may not have been the right place for it, this is a SAFE haven after all.

I REALLY like your idea about having the mental-FOS being activated by crystals, that sounds really 'comic-bookically' (is that a word?) plausible. Not to mention, it presents a device that could fall into the wrong hands heheh... I may be abusing the rules when i throw this question in the mix but, has anybody thought of making a Prequel movie somewhat a la Batman Begins?

- And i'm not talking about turning Smallville into a movie or anything like that - I was just thinking along the lines of a movie that takes the most cherished/recognized aspects of the Superman mythos and traces Clark's path to donning the blue and red (and if i made the movie i would literally have it end with him donning the suit for the first time, possibly with the old fanfare fully developed for the first time in the movie)

Anyways, late night thoughts.

Herr Logan

06-15-2006, 12:59 PM

Oh, no offense taken at all about the 'to troll or not to troll' issue - i was just expressing my position on the subject (expressing a predominantly positive view towards the upcoming movie is not trolling by default i hope - and if it is, i will shut my mouth about the movie) BUT it may not have been the right place for it, this is a SAFE haven after all.
Expressing a positive view isn't trolling. Arguing against criticism and/or negative views without providing significant criticisms about the same movie or concept is. I know that sounds weird, and I'm aware it may come off to some people as endorsing a "negative only" attitude in these Safe Havens. Still, I firmly believe that better and more faithful movies could be made if the right people just had the will, and there is no progress to be made by simply showering existing, flawed products and their creators with boundless praise.
When I say "flawed," I mean to whatever degree, great or small. Everything has flaws, and if those flaws can be fixed, people should attempt to fix them. Even after those flaws are fixed, more will seem to appear, and then people should fix those as well. Perfection will never be achieved, but it should still be sought, because otherwise people are just denying their better natures and setting themselves up for complete boredom and stagnation.
Anyway, I didn't make these threads with a negative attitude in mind. However, anyone who has negative feelings towards existing products is welcome to talk about it here, to a point. If it's a huge amount of complaining without any suggestions for how it could be improved or redone or whatever. It's all about showing love for the source material and respect for the human imagination. So many people on these boards are devoid of the bare minimum imagination it takes to actually enjoy the comics. So many are also cowards who are insecure with their preference for superheroes, and that's why they don't dare support the idea of anything "unrealistic" making its way into a superhero movie, and will rarely let it go unchallenged when someone so much as asks a question about such decisions being made. Oh noes! Robin was campy in a few Batman incarnations in various media... he can't possibly fit into Christopher Nolan's "realistic" Gotham City, where high-intensity microwaves have no effect on the human body, fresh steam that bursts out of underground pipes isn't very hot, a Kevlar utility harness gets produced with no actual harness (the straps he cut off do not count, as those wouldn't have been of any use either way) and a big-shot mob boss who supposedly runs Gotham's underworld gets caught at the scene of a drug shipment. Everything in that scenario is perfect, and making the Batman's costume less bulky and allowing the Joker to act like the Joker would destroy it all!
That's the kind of bull***** I've had to put up with, and even in my own Batman thread recently. He dared to defend all that childish pseudoscientific nonsense about microwave emmitters that do nothing but make Dr. Scarecrow's perfectly plausible fear toxin into the air, not coming close to scalding anyone.

That's why I was wary of you, not because you yourself did anything wrong. As long as you follow the rules and bring lots of junk food every time you enter my sanctum, we'll be just fine. :)

I REALLY like your idea about having the mental-FOS being activated by crystals, that sounds really 'comic-bookically' (is that a word?) plausible. Not to mention, it presents a device that could fall into the wrong hands heheh...
Well of course you like it! I said it, didn't I!?
You should be grateful I even so much as let you live to see the sun slink away from this horrible day like the coward it is!!!

*achem*

:O
Forgive me, for I have not slept, and I had an exam today in a class I need to complete my major that's on a subject I've never been good at.

Seriously, though, thanks. That was just something that came to me at the time, as I'd never considered the idea of the FOS taking place in Superman's mind. That's some imagination right there! If you make sure to throw enough crystaline/arctic imagery into it, it's a very creative new idea that doesn't stray too far from the source material. :up:

I may be abusing the rules when i throw this question in the mix but, has anybody thought of making a Prequel movie somewhat a la Batman Begins?
I don't think that's a caning offense, at first glance, anyway.

- And i'm not talking about turning Smallville into a movie or anything like that -
Damn right!

:p

I was just thinking along the lines of a movie that takes the most cherished/recognized aspects of the Superman mythos and traces Clark's path to donning the blue and red (and if i made the movie i would literally have it end with him donning the suit for the first time, possibly with the old fanfare fully developed for the first time in the movie)
From what it sounds like, I think I personally would not be too excited about that as a movie, but if your basing the concept on viable comics source material (and stays away from 'Smallville' like there was a restraining order on it, which there oughtta be!) I have no problem with you discussing it here. Maybe Hunter Rider will have something meaningful to say about it. That's if he could get his roving-eyed, voyeuristic ass out of his favorite borderline porn thread (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9182028#post9182028) for 30 minutes and pay me my God damn tribute already!!

*achem*

Bottom line, personal tastes alone aren't grounds for blocking ideas. The defining criteria are whether it strays too far from the comics and/or is too strongly based on other blatantly unfaithful adaptations with insufficient repairs. Feel free to elaborate, even if Hunter chooses to continue to walk his shameful path of sin instead of rejoicing here in my little kingdom. I probably haven't read whatever origin story from the comics you're basing this on, so I'm just in the dark on this, is all.

Anyways, late night thoughts.
Where do you live? Or are you like me and just haven't slept a single minute of last night, making the present time seem the equivalent of being very late at night?

Thanks for posting, man. Keep that imagination rollin'. :up:

:wolverine

P.S.: If this post needs editing because my current state is not very conducive to cogent and correct writing, I shall attend to it soon.

kame-sennin

06-21-2006, 10:39 PM

I have nothing constructive to add to this thread, but I just watched the HBO first look on Superman Returns and I felt the need to say: I hate that ****ing costume! His cape looks practically black in the night scenes and it pisses me off. He's a goddamn international symbol for hope, justice, and a hole bunch of other good ****, why the hell is he wearing maroon and blue/grey?! Everyone has specific tailor-centric conscerns about this costume, but I feel I've narrowed mine down. It's the goddamn colors. More than the stupid little 'S', more than the swimmer's physique and bikini trunks, and more than those lame, stumpy boots. I. Hate. The. Colors. On. That. Costume.

Vent complete. Sorry if that wasn't very logical or well thought out, but I needed to get that out.

Herr Logan

06-21-2006, 11:11 PM

Herr Logan

06-30-2006, 10:49 PM

So, I saw 'Superman Returns' last night. I have mixed reactions to this movie, but my varying feelings are mostly very polarized. What they did well, they did very, very well, and most of what they did wrong was unforgivably wrong. I gave the movie a 5 out of 10 in the official review/poll thread.

If I was a supporter of this project, I would give you the bad news first and the good news later, leaving you, my faithful readers, with a more optimistic impression of it, since I would have saved the best for last and gone out on a high note. Yeah, well, that ain't the case, so you're gettin' the good stuff first! Spoilers ahead!

The Good:

First off, it used the theme music from the original movies and a very similar presentation of the beginning credits. That theme brought tears to my eyes... when I saw 'Superman: The Movie' and 'Superman II.' Thankfully, it did not do it this time, as I would have been ashamed to shed any tears during this film but those that signify sadness and woe. Let me tell you all right now that the original Superman movies are what got me addicted to superhero fiction, so they have a very, very special place in my heart, so the theme music touches me deeply in general. It did not do that this time, because I knew I was seeing a movie that was not about the real Superman. Still, if they had taken the premise of this movie seriously, the opening visuals and music would have been a terrific choice.

The action was overall very satisfactory for me. I didn't have any problems with the CGI. If that had been the real Superman instead of an imposter, that part of it would be a 10 on the 1 to 10 scale, with consideration for the fact that there were no superpowered villains. There was a good deal of action, although there were very few physical encounters with criminals, as opposed to saving people from random accidents and collateral damage from Lex Luthor's Kryptonian crystal shenanigans.

Kevin Spacey played the part written for him perfectly, and the part was written well, considering he's picking up where Gene Hackman left off. A lot of people criticize him because he's allegedly "campy." Screw that. Seriously, if you like 'Superman: The Movie' and Gene Hackman's role, then you'd agree that he's less campy, while still retaining the best qualities of the original performance. If you didn't like Gene Hackman's role, then I can understand that, although Luthor is more brutal and less comical here (not that he isn't funny at all, because he is, and I think he really had some fun in this role). Anyway, I consider Lex one of the highlights of the movie. His hench-wench, Kitty, was annoying, though.

Lex's evil plan was pretty decent. I had no real qualms about it and enjoyed it. As anybody reading this probably knows, Luthor travelled to the Fortess of Solitude and told Holographic Jor-El to tell him "everything." Ge Stole Kryptonian crystals from the Fortress that form large, jagged land masses that mimic the terrain of Krypton when dropped into water. That's the kind of crystal that created to the Fortress in the first place. His grand scheme tied in very well to the one in the first movie. In S:TM, Luthor bought up a whole bunch of uninhabited, low-cost desert in California and then launched a missle at the San Andreas Fault, hoping to cause the coast to the west of the fault line to break off into the sea, leaving the barren desert the new beach-front property. I don't know how plausible that is, considering that countries don't float, but are rooted to the ocean floor. In any case, Movie!Luthor is all about real estate, and this movie kept that theme, as Luthor stuck one of those crystals into the center a big chunk of Kryptonite that was cut into the shape of a cylinder, launched it into the Atlantic Ocean and thus created a massive island, characterized by jagged crystaline rocks jutting out every which way. He said that crystals take on the properties of the elements surrounding them, which is meant to explain why the island had lots and lots of Kryptonite fragments in it. I don't know if he was only referring to Kryptonian crystals, and that it happens slowly over lots of time, or only when it's a Kryptonian crystal put in the water. Whatever. So Luthor's big plan is to create this "New Krypton" nation that he would control, and in the process of forming, the island would destroy or land masses, killing billions. I think it was a worthy plot.

The Bad:

I'm not gonna spend too much time on this. Either you understand the basic characteristics of Superman, or you don't, so don't even think about defending this aspect of the film, unless you've got a huge amount of complaints about other aspects of it. Here at the Safe Haven, we demand more quality and faithfulness!

Anyway, the premise of this movie was completely wrong. At the end of 'Superman II,' our hero promised the President that he wouldn’t let him down again (he took a red sunlight shower and turned off his powers so he could be with Lois, and then Zod & Friends showed up and conquered the planet while Supes and Lois were cuddling). So what would Brian Singer have you believe? That Superman just took off and left Earth for five years, leaving Lex Luthor free to slip through the fingers of the criminal justice system. Yeah, that sounds like our Superman. And don’t anybody tell me that they were trying to make Superman more “human” or “relatable” or “realistic” by making him flawed. If that was their intention, then it was a failure. They didn’t make him a “relatable” person in the least. It was a betrayal of what he stands for. Yes, we know that him saying “I never lie” to Lois in the first movie was, in fact, a lie, but he still keeps that down to a minimum. And yes, I do indeed criticize the plausibility of both Superman and Clark Kent returning to Metropolis at the exact same time while nobody seriously considers it, and no, having Movie!Cyclops make hints about it doesn’t make that any better, and no, I will not suspend my disbelief the same way I suspend it with regard to his extremely weak “disguise” being effective. Superman’s no-mask method of keeping his secret identity is a permanent part of the mythos. Superman leaving for five years just to look at a floating chunk of Kryptonite is not.. I do not question most of the sci-fi elements of the Superman mythos, but anything that’s completely new and from the mind of Brian Singer or any of his colleagues is fair game.

The next major point is the kid. I’m not even going to explain what’s wrong with this. Again, you either get it or you don’t. Yet again, don’t anybody dare defend this ridiculous idea without offering substantial criticism of other elements of the movie.

The amount of time between the last bit of action and the end credits was way too long. It’s as if they wanted us to forget that there was something exciting in the movie. Did they somehow think it was more worthwhile to show Superman in his hospital bed, see him yet again spying on Lois and have him talk to a child that never should have existed in the first place? There are better ways to show “down time” with this character, and they sure as hell shouldn’t have left that much tepid screen time go by towards the end. Singer & Co., you should learn the difference between a Superman movie and a track meet—after running around a track for extended periods of time, it is recommended that one walks around for a while before becoming still for too long. This is called “cooling off.” A moviegoer doesn’t need that much time to cool off. God forbid you should actually make this movie for the fans (which include a huge part of the Earth’s population) and viewers, instead of for the purpose of bringing their own fan-fiction ideas to life.

The Ugly:

The costume. There is absolutely no excuse for that costume. You’d think it was impossible to stick to the basic design (which they did) and screw it up, but somehow they felt the need to do so. Was it in order to make him “sexier” or something? Whatever the motive, it’s just plain wrong. Movie!Supes’ cape is maroon, not red, and that’s irrefutably wrong. The “S” shield is much, much too small, which makes him look scrawnier. The shorts are also much too small, and the extremely low beltline makes him look, yet again, scrawnier. He looks like a swimmer, and he’s supposed to look like a weight-lifter (or something like that). The fact is, Brandon Routh is actually quite broad in the shoulders, but they completely ruined that with their idiotic alterations.

One more thing: the neckline. To anybody who would dare tell me that any of the changes in this movie were for the sake of “realism,” take a look at his neckline. How the hell do you wear something like that under a suit? Yes, you could potentially get away with it… if you were sitting still the whole time you were in public! What stupidity enabled the costume designers to ruin Superman’s costume? It’s so easy, and yet they couldn’t even measure up my lowest expectations. Pathetic.

Well, that’s how it is. For anyone who hasn’t seen the movie yet, I do recommend that you watch it. There’s a lot of good action and there’s a damn good Lex Luthor. Go in with as much negative bias as you want… you’ll enjoy it more that way, since the good parts will surprise you.

:wolverine

Zev

07-03-2006, 12:29 AM

Mostly agree, and I'm going to give them leeway on the Jason thing because historically, the Superman adaptions have done a lot of things that flushed back into comics canon. Without filmmakers and radio producers and animators changing things around, comic book Superman would be unrecognizable.

Kryptonite was invented by the Superman radio show, along with Perry White and Jimmy Olsen, not to mention the "It's a bird etc." catch phrase.
Superman's flying ability was invented by the Fleischer (sp?) Brothers cartoons.
Mercy Graves was from the Paul Dini cartoon, as is Brainiac's insignia.
Kal-El instead of Kal-L (and so on with Jor-El, etc.) comes from a novel written by George Lowther in 1942.

And so on and so forth.

But even if you dislike the movie, trust me, it's lightyears ahead of the J.J. Abrams script that's floating around online. Superman does kung-fu (why does he need it!?), uses "blastaffs" that shoots lasers (but he has heatvision!), fights villains so underdeveloped they're anemic (I think "Dr. Lex Luthor" is one of the worst Lex Luthors ever put to paper), and a gay Jimmy Olsen (and yes, he is described as "effeminate"). Oh, and there's a near-rape of Martha Kent (I'm not being metaphorical, someone actually tries to rape Ma Kent. The entire time I'm thinkg what is this doing in a Superman movie?) and Clark is an angsty Spider-Man clone who wishes he was jes like all the othah kiddies. And the Superman suit is a symbiote. Like Venom.

For the sake of your soul, don't read it. I'm leaving out the really awful stuff, like how they've replaced Superman's Krypton origin with the Star Wars prequels.

Herr Logan

07-03-2006, 04:20 AM

If my girlfriend of 5.5 years-- and fiancee of 4.5 of those years-- hadn't left me earlier tonight, thereby destroying any possible dreams of lasting happiness and leaving me with the options of getting intimate with the wheels and tracks of a subway train or moving back in with my parents in a month, I'd feel compelled to tear you a new assh0le for flagrantly ignoring the rule about not defending current adaptations without supplying at least an equal amount of alternative criticisms for that same adaptation (which means the actual product, not J.J. Abrams' horrific vision of Superman which never got made). But here we are. **** it... this place is as dead as Krypton and as pointless as my future. You people do whatever you damn well please. Make sure to **** on the rules of every other "Safe Haven" thread while you're at it, so none of them feel left out. Try the Fantastic Four one, since the only post in there that isn't mine is by a smug, disrespectful, worthless dick-rind who chose to use one post out of the seven he's made over the year he's been signed up here to mock me. Might as well keep a common theme.

I'm ****ing done here. Have fun.

:wolverine

Jakomus

07-03-2006, 12:01 PM

Herr Logan

07-03-2006, 01:20 PM

Calm down. This post was unecessary.

So was his. So is yours. The relevant point was that it's not okay to draw up a list of examples (no matter how well researched or accurate) that attempts to justify a drastic change from continuity without providing real, significant criticism of other aspects of the movie, and saying that you agree with the majority of my comments isn't good enough. This is not a general discussion thread where people just post their general opinions of the movies, although adding general impressions is fine to do as long as the poster provides a reasonably well thought out criticism and/or an idea for a hypothetical non-comics media adaptation of the same subject (or in the range of subjects, since at least one of these threads is designated for a wide range of various superhero franchises) that would be more faithful than what has been produced in real life before or is likely to be in the future.

The majority of the Superhero Hype boards superhero media forums have countless threads that welcome general reactions, whether positive or negative. Zev has regularly contributed to various Safe Haven threads, so I'd be fine if he just wants to say what he liked or didn't like, i.e. merely expressing his preferences. What I'm not okay with is him, or anyone else, defending an aspect of a film that has been criticized already in this very thread, without writing an equal or comparable amount of text that criticizes other aspects. I specifically said in my review post that nobody is allowed to do that, but he did it anyway. If I was in a better mood, I may or may not let it slide, but I'm not in a better mood. I'm bitterness personified right now, but I'm still thinking rationally enough to accurately judge a post as welcome or prohibited material with regard to this thread.

If I didn't make it clear enough that criticizing alternate scripts as an attempt to follow the rules isn't enough, then I'm sorry for that, but I've seen too many of those kinds of comparisons, particularly with the Spider-Man movies ("At least it wasn't Cameron's scriptment, so be thankful for what you get") to let it slide.

I've explained my reasons for making the judgement call that I did. As for the ranting and lashing out, if I thought you gave a damn about the reasons behind that, I'd give a damn about your objection to it. But this isn't an "if" set of circumstances.
As I said, I've justified myself with regard to labeling that post prohibited material. I remember calmly justifying my reasons for adding a new rule to every Marvel Safe Haven that you told me you thought was unfair, and was willing to talk it out civilly, but you never responded to that. I want to make it clear that my willingness to explain myself is in no way meant to imply a willingness to take orders from other people in any Safe Haven thread. If you want to ignore me when I'm being reasonable, then you should go ahead and ignore me when I don't feel like expressing myself reasonably.

In any case, my last post wasn't a threat. It was my reaction to not being taken seriously. Zev's a trouble-maker, not a troll. It's an important difference when someone has contributed as much as he has.

:wolverine

Zev

07-03-2006, 01:51 PM

Well, I had hoped agreeing with your criticisms was sufficient. But if not...

The journey to Krypton wasn't given much weight. He went to his homeworld, found nothing, and came back. I realize there are thematic reasons for this, but couldn't they have come up with a more convincing reason for him to be out of action? A distress signal from Krypton, as I could kinda believe that Superman would go to Krypton if he thought he was going to rescue survivors and instead just found ruins.

Biggest plot hole ever... since this is obviously a sequel to the Donner Superman movies, why doesn't Supes just push the Earth backwards in its orbit around the sun five times (since we know spinning it around backwards reverses time) and it'll be like he never left. No Lex Luthor getting out of prison, no Lois Lane getting engaged to another man... Maybe if they had a scene of Martha Kent asking him this (thus justifying her otherwise pointless cameo) and him saying that he can't because the last time he did it he almost fractured the time-space continuum beyond repair or something, thus giving him no more get-out-of-jail-free cards.

This is more of a personal problem, but as soon as Lex's gal said "You act like you've been here before," I could hear thousands of Smallville fans rushing off to write "prequels" where the Fortress of Solitude is Clark Kent and Lex Luthor's secret love nest.

And the biggest problem I have with the movie is that they deliberately took the "American Way" out of "Truth, Justice, and..." because (and this is a quote from the screenwriters) "it doesn't mean the same thing as it meant back in 1945."

Well, that's all I can think of right now. What about you, C.S. Lewis, you got any complaints?

http://www.chivalrytoday.com/Photos/Lewis_CS.jpg

"I think they kinda overdid it with the Christ symbolism."

Herr Logan

07-03-2006, 06:44 PM

Well, I had hoped agreeing with your criticisms was sufficient. But if not...
Apology accepted.

As soon as you bring me a whole lotta pie or other "comfort food."

If my girlfriend doesn't come back to me, it'll mean the last movie we ever saw together was 'The Devil Wore Prada.' Now I'm not saying that it was bad, or that Merryl Streep wasn't fantastic, but I did it as a gesture of good faith, not choice. I'd rather sit through the entirety of 'Superman Returns' (as opposed to just the good parts on DVD) several more times, completely by choice, than see a movie that's at once an enormous designer clothing commercial and a thinly-veiled and intelligently written ******-slap toward an editor in chief of Vogue magazine as a small leaf on an olive branch that got rejected.

The journey to Krypton wasn't given much weight. He went to his homeworld, found nothing, and came back. I realize there are thematic reasons for this, but couldn't they have come up with a more convincing reason for him to be out of action? A distress signal from Krypton, as I could kinda believe that Superman would go to Krypton if he thought he was going to rescue survivors and instead just found ruins.
Good point. There could conceivably be a distress signal set up right before the planet was destroyed that is still broadcasting on a loop since it was programmed. It could be an ambiguous message that sounds like it's a current situation (kind of like on 'Lost' for the first few seconds after discovering Rousseau's distress call) and maybe with some distortion that blocks out some essential words that declare that the planet is going to explode and leaves it open for the interpretation that the planet already exploded and these are survivors seeking a new inhabitable place to live.

Then again, it took him five years to get there and back. They could change the timeframe, sure, but it would have to be a great leap of faith to think he'd get there in time. Still, it's a possibility.

Biggest plot hole ever... since this is obviously a sequel to the Donner Superman movies, why doesn't Supes just push the Earth backwards in its orbit around the sun five times (since we know spinning it around backwards reverses time) and it'll be like he never left. No Lex Luthor getting out of prison, no Lois Lane getting engaged to another man... Maybe if they had a scene of Martha Kent asking him this (thus justifying her otherwise pointless cameo) and him saying that he can't because the last time he did it he almost fractured the time-space continuum beyond repair or something, thus giving him no more get-out-of-jail-free cards.
Can't say I'm real surprised about them not using that trick. :o

This is more of a personal problem, but as soon as Lex's gal said "You act like you've been here before," I could hear thousands of Smallville fans rushing off to write "prequels" where the Fortress of Solitude is Clark Kent and Lex Luthor's secret love nest.
Now I can hear them, too. :(

And the biggest problem I have with the movie is that they deliberately took the "American Way" out of "Truth, Justice, and..." because (and this is a quote from the screenwriters) "it doesn't mean the same thing as it meant back in 1945."

Shoulda seen that one coming.

If I was in charge of a Captain America movie franchise, I'd ask DC if I could use that if they're not going to (after telling them extensively about how I hate Joey Q as much as they do, since he's the reason the two companies won't be doing any business together any time soon), and I'd make sure to have the titular character explain what exactly the "American way" is in such a way that it won't offend (or just plain piss off) any reasonable people. I can understand them not wanting to use that for Superman in this era, but at the same time I can easily see them using it in a non-nationalistic context. In any case, they didn't do it well. "All that jazz." Yeah, that's real witty.

Well, that's all I can think of right now. What about you, C.S. Lewis, you got any complaints?

http://www.chivalrytoday.com/Photos/Lewis_CS.jpg

"I think they kinda overdid it with the Christ symbolism."
This is why I can't stay mad at you, Zev. :D :up:

:wolverine

Zev

07-03-2006, 07:09 PM

Good point. There could conceivably be a distress signal set up right before the planet was destroyed that is still broadcasting on a loop since it was programmed. It could be an ambiguous message that sounds like it's a current situation (kind of like on 'Lost' for the first few seconds after discovering Rousseau's distress call) and maybe with some distortion that blocks out some essential words that declare that the planet is going to explode and leaves it open for the interpretation that the planet already exploded and these are survivors seeking a new inhabitable place to live.

Then again, it took him five years to get there and back. They could change the timeframe, sure, but it would have to be a great leap of faith to think he'd get there in time. Still, it's a possibility.

Well, all of the Superman films have played fast and loose with time and physics (didn't Jor-El's recording say he had been dead for "thousands of your years?"). They could just magic up some Kryptonian "return to sender" crystal so he gets to Krypton in five minutes and takes five years to go back. It just feels like such a dropped plot point, I wouldn't be surprised if they brought it back for Superman Returns 2: Superman Didn't Leave This Time, So Really It's Us, The Audience, Who's Returning. Although J.J. Abrams' script sucked balls, the idea of evil Kryptonians (I think there was a Superman TAS comic book on this premise) coming to conquer/colonize Earth is a good concept. Although as said, the execution of said premise in J.J. Abrams script is craptacular. But imagine Superman's loyalties being torn between his people and his adopted homeland, Lex Luthor and Superman having to work together to get rid of the Kryptonians, dogfights between the evil Kryptonians and fighter jets with Kryptonite warheads, maybe even the return of General Zod...

If I was in charge of a Captain America movie franchise, I'd ask DC if I could use that if they're not going to (after telling them extensively about how I hate Joey Q as much as they do, since he's the reason the two companies won't be doing any business together any time soon), and I'd make sure to have the titular character explain what exactly the "American way" is in such a way that it won't offend (or just plain piss off) any reasonable people. I can understand them not wanting to use that for Superman in this era, but at the same time I can easily see them using it in a non-nationalistic context. In any case, they didn't do it well. "All that jazz." Yeah, that's real witty.

For real. I mean, it's not like it's "Truth, Justice, And Slapping Japanese People." The American Way is a completely subjective saying and could be interpreted as anything from "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" to "my country, right or wrong." If someone can't hear "American" and imagine it in a positive context, what business do they have watching a movie financied by Americans, written by Americans, directed by an American, with a cast of Americans, and then distributed by Americans based on a character who was created by American immigrants and owned by an American comic book company?

Zev

07-03-2006, 11:59 PM

Right, so here's my idea for a Superman sequel, since at this point they've already restarted the franchise as much as they're going to (for which I'm very happy to have the Superman universe no longer include Richard Pryor or a solar-powered Nuclear Man).

We pick up a couple of days after Superman Returns. Superman, in a lead spacesuit (he said, borrowing from the animated series) retrieves the Kryptonian crystals from the asteroid and gives it a kick for good measure, sending it fast on its way out of the solay system.

SUPERMAN: Maybe now the tides will get back to normal.

He looks back down at Earth and uses his telescopic vision to see that the beginnings of a tsunami have already started. He flies down to deal with it, but we don't go with him. Instead, we soar through the stars as the credits roll in Superman-style, until finally we reach the Skullship, deep in the void of space. Yes, THAT Skullship.

Brainiac laments the lack of a breakthrough in his experiments to his repairman/beta tester and organic sidekick (because even evil sentient computers need someone to bounce exposition off), Koko, a monkey-like alien. And yes, I know Koko is a wacky Silver Age plot device, but I trust everyone involved can make him, if not cool, then at least not embarrassing. Koko is a prisoner of Brainiac who's forced to check for errors and repair damage Brainiac cannot himself correct. He's basically there so that Brainiac can try to understand the "human" condition. As Brainiac explains it, he's a control sample. Brainiac constantly and cruelly makes him think he's about to die, just to see his reaction.

Once, long ago, someone asked Brainiac if there's life after death. Brainiac, being the literal sort, observed people on their deathbed to gauge their reactions to death. Then he started killing people. Then he started destroying entire worlds to see how civilizations as a whole would react to destruction. Everywhere he goes, the reaction is the same. Attempts at appeasement, denial, fear, panic, insanity, etc.

Then he (it?) picks up the gravity of the Kryptonian continent passing through space. He tracks it back to Earth, where his sensors pick up an excess of neutrinos (particles related to time, Brainiac says that the local time-space continuum has been pushed nearly to the breaking point, like a black hole, explaining why Superman doesn't reverse time because the effect is cumulative).

BRAINIAC: Earth has nowhere near the resources necessary to develop interplanetary projectile weaponry. They're only a sixth-level intelligence.

KOKO: Then you're twice as smart as one of them?

BRAINIAC: No. All of them PUT TOGETHER are a sixth-level intelligence.

Then his sensors pick up traces of Kryptonian "exhaust gas."

BRAINIAC: It could only mean one thing.

KOKO: You mean...

BRAINIAC: The son of Jor-El yet lives. A Kryptonian raised by... "humans." I wonder how he will react to his deletion.

They set course for Earth, where they find traces of Kryptonian radiation. Naturally, it's coming from the guy who's been exposed to Kryponite the longest... Lex Luthor. Brainiac cloaks his ship and lands on that desert island where Lex and Kitty are still trapped. He tests humans' reaction to death by killing Kitty in cold blood.

KITTY: Lex, do something!

LEX: Why?

Then Brainiac begins to interrogate Lex as to Kryptonian technology.

KOKO: This is pointless. Just kill him and be done with it. We're not getting any closer to Kal-El.

Needless to say, this sets Luthor off and he quickly wheels and deals his way into Brainiac's good graces by promising him Kal-El. Lex explains that if Brainiac can't detect Kal-El right now, it's probably because he's in the Fortress of Solitude and shielded from his probes.

BRAINIAC: Earth custom would dictate an expression of gratitude at this point. "Thank you." Your modification from biological unit to biological waste will be as smooth as possible and added to my databanks for future edification.

LEX: Wait, wait! Just give me five minutes.

BRAINIAC: Minutes?

LEX: (immediately) 1/535680 of the time it takes for this planet to rotate around the sun... roughly.

He explains that the light of the yellow sun gives Superman god-like powers and, moreover, that he has the support of all the world's nations behind him. "The UN made him a citizen of every country on the globe." But, Lex says with a glimmer in his eye, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

Brainiac extends claws from his hand before Lex waves him off. Separate Superman from his adoring public, Lex explains, and he's powerless. He needs the mindless adulation of the unwashed masses or he's just a guy in silly tights. It took five years for this to happen naturally, but Lex can do it in two. Brainiac says this is inefficent.

LEX: On the contrary, it's scientific. I've met him, guy has a martyr complex the side of this island. You kill him, blip, it's over, just like that. Not very satisfying, trust me, I've thought about it. But you break him first... then we'll see what really beats in that alien heart he's draped a red cape of humanity over.

Brainiac accepts.

Cut to a few years later (whenever the film is released to you and me). Lex has invested what remains of his fortune and, with Brainiac's help (alien technology patents, manipulating the stock market with a twelfth-level intellect), has made himself a billionaire. Still obsessed with land, he's made himself a mover and shaker in Metropolis and basically owns the entire city. He's also pulled a Rupert Murdock and made his own news organization to compete with the Daily Planet, Lex News, as well as formed a special interest group, Citizens Concerned About Alien Influence (CRAAL, pronounced "crawl"), to basically muck-rake Superman.

On a morning talk show on Lex News, Lex argues with guest Lois Lane about Superman.

LEX: You see a savior, I see an unreliable alien that's keeping us from reaching our full potential. I see us becoming more and more dependant on him to solve our problems, human problems... and I can't help but wonder what happens if and when he cuts out for another five years? Or longer? Or forever?

Lex goes on to imply that Superman framed him for the nuclear weapons plot and asks what if Superman is just the vanguard for an alien invasion, name-dropping that there have been sightings of "strange beings" in St. Roch, Coast City, Central City, etc. Maybe with a few blurry "Bigfoot" style pictures of superheroes just for fun.

Cut to Clark Kent watching this at the Daily Planet, where he looks guilty. A lot of the public has lost faith in him and a Lex News poll shows his approval ratings down. "Up next," Cat Grant, the Lex News anchor, announces. "A special on the damage Superman could do if he went rogue using the very latest in special effects technology."

However, this is a Superman movie, not a "Clark Kent has angst" movie, so we zoom in on Kent's ear as he hears "Help, Superman!" He checks with his x-ray vision... people in the elevator, two interns necking in the supply room... and finally takes the stairs at superspeed, the gray blur of his suit transitioning smoothly into red, blue, and yellow.

In a museum, a gang of high-tech banditos (maybe led by a minor Superman villain doing a cameo), steal several gems... and a sample of Kryptonite inside a translucent lead display. They smash the sample with a sledgehammer, takes a finger-sized chunk, saying "This is all we need."

Superman flies through the city. "Look, it's a bird!" and so on.

On the roof of the museum, the gang loads their loot into a helicopter gunship. One technician installs the Kryponite fragment into a strange-looking cannon installed on the nose.

Then they hear the sonic boom of Superman approaching.

TECHNICIAN: It's not ready yet!

LEADER-CAMEO-VILLAIN-GUY: Then we'll have to buy some time, won't we?

He detonates some explosives in the foundations of a monument (ala "the Washington") on the other side of the city. Superman's eyes glow red with anger, but he abandons the thieves to save the collapsing monument. He catches it before it falls into traffic, pushes it back into place, then freezes the foundation with his Arctic Breath. This done, he grabs a cement truck and squeezes it like a tube of glue, replacing the ice with cement which he then drys with heatvision. Bam, the tower is as good as new. Superman polishes a smidge off it with his cape and goes after the thieves, who are getting away in the gunship.

What follows is a spectacular dogfight between Superman and the helicopter through the urban canyons of Metropolis. The helicopter has a Kryponite laser which weakens Superman for the missiles and miniguns of the helicopter. Superman uses his X-ray vision, looking for something made of lead. He finds the sewers. Lex Luthor got a contract to renovate them and made them out of lead to spite Superman. Supes rips up a sheet of metal and uses it as a shield to get close enough to grab it by the tail and spin it around, trying to nauseate the thieves into surrender. The leader opens up the laser and takes out the Kryponite, throwing it at Superman.

It hits and Superman is weakened, letting go of the helicopter. It crashes into a skyscraper under construction. Superman rescues some workers and the thieves, but the skyscraper is pretty banged up.

A limo arrives. Lex's new, not-annoying hot babe sidekick, MERCY GRAVES, opens up a lead ringbox and hands him a Kryponite ring (Lex: Amazing the things you can find on E-bay). She's a fanatic who came up through the ranks of CRAAL and, as Lex explains, "she has a conscience I can buy."

Lex goes to confront Superman, taunting him to keep his distance and demanding to be reimbursed for the damage to "the new Lexcorp Tower" or he'll sue.

SUPERMAN: Sorry, left my wallet in my other tights. But if you'll give me a minute...

In a pure Silver Age moment, he flies deep below the sea, to a sunken ship wreck, grabs a treasure chest, and drops it in front of Lex. Lex's eyes go wide as Kal-El hands him a ruby.

SUPERMAN: That should cover the damages. I'm sure you'll see that the rest goes back to the proper owners. It was a Spanish galleon, seventeenth century I believe, but I didn't get a good look.

He flies off, leaving Lex to simmer. Or tries to. He has to embarrassingly walk a few more meters away from the Kryptonite before he can "up, up, and away."

More to come.

Herr Logan

07-04-2006, 01:39 AM

I don't have it in me right now to do a point-by-point dissection of this (which I'm sure you're sorry to hear), but here are my initial thoughts on your write-up:

Overall, I like this a lot. I'm not very knowledgable about Brainiac, so I can't really gauge how faithful your concept is or is not, but my current reaction is that your rendition of him is very interesting and very creepy.

There's a syndicate of high-tech criminals in Superman mythology called Intergang, isn't there? You could probably model your gang of "high-tech banditos" on that and give them the name.

The one thing that stands out as a problem is the gangster on the gunship pulling a chunk of Kryptonite out of the laser cannon, throwing it and hitting Superman when his target is spinning the helicopter around at the time. How is that supposed to work? Also, I'm guessing that your concept of Kryptonite is not only much more effective than that of 'Superman Returns' (which it damn well should be), but by far more effective than in most other versions, since merely getting hit in the air by a finger-sized fragment of Kryptonite (which would immediately fall to the ground, making actual contact for probably less than a full second) strikes me as not enough to weaken Superman significantly, much less when thrown by a human being who shouldn't even be able to throw accurately. That's my one major criticism here. Pretty much everything else looks fine, and I'd like it if we got something like that in a future movie (with a better costume, too!).

Good work, Zev. Sorry I don't feel up to commenting on all the stuff I like (which is almost all of it) right now. Thanks for posting. :up:

:wolverine

Zev

07-04-2006, 01:59 AM

I don't have it in me right now to do a point-by-point dissection of this (which I'm sure you're sorry to hear), but here are my initial thoughts on your write-up:

Overall, I like this a lot. I'm not very knowledgable about Brainiac, so I can't really gauge how faithful your concept is or is not, but my current reaction is that your rendition of him is very interesting and very creepy.

I don't either, but almost everything about him comes from the animated series aside from his motivation. Pre-Crisis it was "Honey, I shrunk the major city" and TAS it was gathering information and destroying the civilization that created it because that way the information would be more valuable. Post-Crisis he was some sort of psychic in a circus. His motivation I came up with just because I thought it would be cool and logical for the character.

There's a syndicate of high-tech criminals in Superman mythology called Intergang, isn't there? You could probably model your gang of "high-tech banditos" on that and give them the name.

Probably. What's the name of their leader, Manheim?

The one thing that stands out as a problem is the gangster on the gunship pulling a chunk of Kryptonite out of the laser cannon, throwing it and hitting Superman when his target is spinning the helicopter around at the time. How is that supposed to work? Also, I'm guessing that your concept of Kryptonite is not only much more effective than that of 'Superman Returns' (which it damn well should be), but by far more effective than in most other versions, since merely getting hit in the air by a finger-sized fragment of Kryptonite (which would immediately fall to the ground, making actual contact for probably less than a full second) strikes me as not enough to weaken Superman significantly, much less when thrown by a human being who shouldn't even be able to throw accurately. That's my one major criticism here. Pretty much everything else looks fine, and I'd like it if we got something like that in a future movie (with a better costume, too!).

The Kryponite is just powerful enough to make Superman let go of the gunship. Amend that to have Denheim just throw a switch and open the Kryptonite chamber, letting the radiation out. Add that to the small-arm fire the thugs in the gunship have to be getting out and Supes'll be forgiven for being a butterfingers.

Herr Logan

07-04-2006, 10:41 AM

I don't either, but almost everything about him comes from the animated series aside from his motivation. Pre-Crisis it was "Honey, I shrunk the major city" and TAS it was gathering information and destroying the civilization that created it because that way the information would be more valuable. Post-Crisis he was some sort of psychic in a circus. His motivation I came up with just because I thought it would be cool and logical for the character.

Probably. What's the name of their leader, Manheim?

Here the Wiki for Intergang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergang).

Lex Luthor was also a member in the comics at some point, so in the movie he could be a backer for Intergang, with Morgan Edge the top-ranking leader, with various lieutenants (like "Ugly" Mannheim, who could be dealing directly with Desaad in secret, planning to take over like in the comics) commanding teams for various missions (if they're going to be that organized, which I personally would have them be).

Would you put Darkseid and Apocalypse in your franchise and have Darkseid's torturer Desaad be the one who provides Intergang with their high tech? I would. That's how they did it in the comics and that's a perfect way to bring in some real heavy hitters for Superman to eventually fight, probably in the movie after the one you're discussing (unless Brainiac isn't man enough to hold his own movie). I personally would show Desaad making deals with Morgan Edge and Darkseid in this movie

Granny Goodness took over Intergang in S:TAS after Darseid killed Mannheim, and that's a good way to lead into the various Apokalyptian gods/lieutenents of Darkseid.

I vote Kathy Bates as Granny Goodness! You know I'm right. They might want to use some traditional or digital camera tricks to make her look much taller, since Bates is only as tall as Wolverine (the realone, 5'3"), and I feel like Granny and the rest of those villains from Apokalypse (except for Desaad, who looks basically human) should be larger than most humans. It makes them scarier and more alien-looking. They should also have her wear a padded suit to make her look more battle-ready, since Granny has superhuman strength and durability, and while she usually sends the Female Furies (your big opportunity for sexy female action in the series), of whom she is the leader, she can and should so some fighting on her own.

Don't feel compelled to use my suggestions, as they are merely that.

The Kryponite is just powerful enough to make Superman let go of the gunship. Amend that to have Denheim just throw a switch and open the Kryptonite chamber, letting the radiation out. Add that to the small-arm fire the thugs in the gunship have to be getting out and Supes'll be forgiven for being a butterfingers.

All better now! :up:

:wolverine

Hunter Rider

07-04-2006, 12:18 PM

Posted this in another thread and thought it might be ok in here

My brief outline would have been Superman Returning like in SR but with no connection to the Donner movie

While Supes was away Lexcorp has grown even bigger and Superman's arch rival Lex Luthor is making inroads into the political arena and is looking to get a seat in the senate
Lois is investigating Lex's move into politics and is planning to write an expose'

Lex could try to kill her using the plane sequence from the film,but Superman saves her

we then have a face off with him and Lex high up on the balcony of his penthouse offices at Lexcorp where Superman basically lets Lex know he is back and is watching him

Lex see's he has to deal with a problem he thought was gone and makes a call to his labs letting them know that he wants the tests moved forward
We then see him in the labs talking to his scientists and they say that they have a subject ready to try the super soldier kryptonite powered battlesuit design on that Lex was planning to sell to the military............the subject is a shot up bank robber John Corben

Zev

07-04-2006, 02:14 PM

Right, Herr, I know the whole Richard White thing isn't your favorite plot point in the world (that would be organic webbing), it's too big to drop and besides, I liked it. So, on the chick flick side of things, Richard finally gets Lois to give in and set a date. She says she’s been dreading this moment, because she swore she wouldn’t let them get married without telling him the truth.

She tells him about Jason.

Richard just shuts down. Doesn’t say a word, just storms out of the house, gets in his car, and drives. Lois knows better than to go after him.

Meanwhile, Brainiac disguises himself as one "Milton Fine" and walks the Earth doing creepy and villainous things so we don't forget about him and his thanatotic obsession, gauging the world's feelings towards Superman. Although some are suspicious, most accept that he's exactly who he appears to be.

Downloading the sum of the world's knowledge into his Skullship, Brainiac watches scenes of devastation, murder, genocide, and war on his viewscreen. He takes in the horrific violence with blank curiosity.

BRAINIAC: Alone among all the creatures in the cosmos, these humans seem determined to wipe themselves out without my intervention. How fascinating.

KOKO: Don't underestimate them. There must be a reason Jor-El chose this planet for his only son.

That pisses Brainiac off something fierce, for reasons we'll see later. He stimulates the neural circuitry (similar to Brainiac's three-circuit symbol) on Koko's head, causing him to hallucinate that he's being boiled in acid. Brainiac asks if Koko would accept death to stop the pain and, as always, Koko refuses.

KOKO: Life is the most important thing there is. No amount of pain can take its flavor away from me.

Brainiac stops the torture and turns back to the viewscreen, where he watches stock footage of a nuclear explosion.

BRAINIAC: "I am become Death, Destroyer of Worlds." I think that shall be this world's epithet in my database.

For the purposes of continuity, let's amend the "a few years after Superman Returns" to "a few months." Lex Luthor is more of an overnight success story and Clark and Lois are investigating him, trying to prove he's using underhanded means to gain his super-fortune.

Lois gets a meeting with Superman. Tells him that the amnesia kiss is wearing off, bits and pieces of her memory are returning to her. She knows he didn’t date-rape her, she doesn’t know who he is... not yet anyway. Superman says he has no right to be a part of her life, no right to be part of Jason’s life.

That, then, is our romantic subplot. The last temptation of Superman. The love he thought lost forever is waiting for him, staring him in the face, and all he has to do to get it is sell out a good man.

But the next building over, we see Mercy Graves with one of those Veronica Mars long-range recorders. She's taped the whole conversation. Lex airs a recut version which makes it seem as if Superman did rape Lois. Although both Lois and Superman deny it, just the news of a human-Kryptonian hybrid sends shockwaves. Lex whips the latent xenophobia of the masses into a quasi-nationalistic frenzy, a twisted mirror version of the "American way" that Superman fights for.

A group of bullies pick a fight with Jason, who is severely beaten before he jumps away... one of those “tall buildings in a single bound” jumps. He lands on someone’s car, totalling it. All around him, people back away from the small, bruised child shivering in the middle of a car wreck.

Lex schedules a political rally to capitalize on the "Super-scandal" and annouce his candidacy for governor. Mercy says that although Superman's taken a downturn in the polls, he'll bounce back up soon. The majority still supports him despite their muck-raking spin. Lex picks up a red telephone in his office

In his Skullship, Brainiac indulges Luthor. He walks to a vault of embryonic lifeforms, shrunken down to fit inside miniture wombs by a neutrino ray (remember, that's "time goes backwards" particles). In a nod to the comics, Koko sarcastically calls it "the Bottle City of Kandor."

BRAINIAC: (picking up an egg with a pair of tongs) This Kryptonian Droth Beast, upon maturing from its larval stage and being exposed to the yellow sun of Earth, will gain the same powers enjoyed by Kal-El.

KOKO: Only more so, because it's natural form is stronger than a Kryptonian!

BRAINIAC: Precisely.

Placing the egg in a birthing matrix, Brainiac launches the monster to Earth. In the middle of Metropolis, citizens gather around the strange crater that's land in the equivalent of Time Square. The egg, exposed to the yellow sun, rapidly goes through its gestation phase and hatches, unleashing an elephant-sized monster that looks like a cross between a tick and a hyena.

TITANO: SUPERMANNNNNNN!

Superman fights the massive beast in a brawl through the city. It's like one of us trying to wrestle a bear. All the while, Lex makes a "breaking news" bulletin, saying that Superman attracts these kinds of menaces to Metropolis as sort of a challenge. Enemies will come from all over the universe to take a shot at the Man of Steel.

Superman tries to get some distance from Titano, but it leaps after him and bares him down on the ground. On the Metropolis Jumbotron, Lex Luthor opens his buttondown shirt, Superman style, to reveal his platform... a Superman S-Shield with a slash through it. "Ban the S."

Extending a probocis, Titano pierces Superman's no-longer-unbreakable skin and begins to drain his blood. Just then, Maggie Sawyer and the Metropolis SCU comes onto the scene in Lexcorp-brand weapon suit (purple and green, natch). They shoot Titano down, killing it. Flabbergasted, Superman allows his wounds to be bandaged by EMTs and asks how their weapons were able to affect it. Almost apologetically, Maggie reveals a laser-scope like attachment on her rifle which shines red sun radiation on whatever it targets. It was developed in case Superman ever went rogue.

Things go from bad to worse. Brainiac infected Titano with a bioweapon before he unleashed it, Superman has caught tthe Kryptonian equivalent of bird flu, the Kryptonian Plague. As the carrier, he’s immune, but everyone he touches gets sick. And the first one to fall ill is Jason.

Lexcorp makes millions selling vaccines and treatments for the Plague. Superman resolves to exile himself when Luthor’s men (using Brainiac equipment) find evidence of Kryptonian technology readings in Kansas. The spaceship hidden on the Kent farm. Lex refuses to believe that Superman could possibly have a human disguise (anyone remember what his post-Crisis reasoning on this way, because I know the general details but not the specifics).

Brainiac doesn't share his concern. As Milton Fine, he goes to Kansas and stalks Martha Kent, pretending to be a stranded motorist until she figures out his game. Martha tries to call Superman, but Fine is too fast. He drops the human disguise and grabs her by the throat, asking her the same question he's asked Koko so many times.

BRAINIAC: Are you afraid to die?

Superman gets there just in time to see Brainiac absorb his spaceship.

BRAINIAC: Indeed, this is Kryptonian technology. That would make you... the Last Son of Krypton. But the crystals have been removed, all the information in the archives... where is it!?

SUPERMAN: Where's Martha Kent?

BRAINIAC: Cease your feeble attempts to maintain this pretense of humanity, Kal-El... or should I say Clark Kent? Your deception may work on these primates you associate with, but I am the Pride of Colu, a twelfth-level intelligence.

SUPERMAN: Where is she!?

BRAINIAC: Halfway between here and the next world by now.

Enraged, Superman tries to attack Brainiac, who abandons his humanform body to download his consciousness back into his proper android form. As Superman rushes to save Martha, we see a chunk of RED KRYPTONITE in the remains of Milton Fine's body...

By the way, any thoughts on who should play Brainiac/Fine or Mercy Graves?

Jakomus

07-04-2006, 03:26 PM

Faithfulness to the comics aside, did any of you two think Superman Returns was a good MOVIE?

Jakomus

07-04-2006, 03:27 PM

By the way, any thoughts on who should play Brainiac/Fine or Mercy Graves?
Rutger Hauer and Linda Hamilton.

Zev

07-04-2006, 03:46 PM

Faithfulness to the comics aside, did any of you two think Superman Returns was a good MOVIE?

I thought it was great. Aside from a few quibbles, it's right up there with the greats in the genre as well as the Donner films.

Herr Logan

07-04-2006, 04:37 PM

Zev

07-04-2006, 04:49 PM

So, you are keeping Richard White and Jason. From this segment, am I to take it that you're having Richard exit, never to come back?

:wolverine

No. Because you remember in the old Superman 3, when they had Lois and Lex disappear and suddenly we had Lana Lang and that guy who's name I can't even remember, but he was played by Robert Vaughn? Remember how much that sucked, because you're wondering "Hey, where's Lois? And where's Lex Luthor? I don't want Richard Pryor, I mean he's a good comedian, but what's he doing in a Superman movie? What's with all these painfully unfunny jokes? When is Lex Luthor going to try to destroy Superman? Why is Clark making kissy-faces at Lana when he just said he can never have a normal life with a woman? Oh, wait, now Superman's evil, that's pretty cool... wait, now it's sucking again. Sigh."

What was my point? Oh yeah. That would be the second laziest way to resolve a love triangle, the first laziest being to kill one of the angles of the love triangle, leaving the remaining angles to get together. Unless it's the sole man or the sole woman, in which case it's kinda edgy and hip. Or if Daredevil was in a love triangle with Karen Page and Elektra and he died and then Karen and Elektra got together, that would be pretty novel. I mean, it would suck, but it would have lesbians too, so it couldn't be all that bad.

In conclusion, I totally want to see Karen Page and Elektra get it on in a Daredevil movie.

Herr Logan

07-04-2006, 05:07 PM

No. Because you remember in the old Superman 3, when they had Lois and Lex disappear and suddenly we had Lana Lang and that guy who's name I can't even remember, but he was played by Robert Vaughn? Remember how much that sucked, because you're wondering "Hey, where's Lois? And where's Lex Luthor? I don't want Richard Pryor, I mean he's a good comedian, but what's he doing in a Superman movie? What's with all these painfully unfunny jokes? When is Lex Luthor going to try to destroy Superman? Why is Clark making kissy-faces at Lana when he just said he can never have a normal life with a woman? Oh, wait, now Superman's evil, that's pretty cool... wait, now it's sucking again. Sigh."

What was my point? Oh yeah. That would be the second laziest way to resolve a love triangle, the first laziest being to kill one of the angles of the love triangle, leaving the remaining angles to get together. Unless it's the sole man or the sole woman, in which case it's kinda edgy and hip. Or if Daredevil was in a love triangle with Karen Page and Elektra and he died and then Karen and Elektra got together, that would be pretty novel. I mean, it would suck, but it would have lesbians too, so it couldn't be all that bad.

In conclusion, I totally want to see Karen Page and Elektra get it on in a Daredevil movie.

Gotta preserve the completely superfluous and completely absent from the comics love triangle, do you?

*sigh*

Have at it then. Just when I was starting to care about this place again...

:wolverine

Zev

07-04-2006, 06:37 PM

Gotta preserve the completely superfluous and completely absent from the comics love triangle, do you?

*sigh*

Have at it then. Just when I was starting to care about this place again...

:wolverine

Oh, you can't even pretend to care? Now I know I have a heart, 'cause you done gone and broke it!

As I've explained, characters, powers, even Kryponite have been added by other multimedia adaptations. Can you imagine anyone calling Jimmy Olsen or Perry White "completely superfluous and completely absent from the comics Daily Planet" back when the radio serial came out?

Jakomus

07-05-2006, 03:10 PM

Thse threads are advertised as being safe havens who demand more, but right now it just looks like they are safe havens for people who want movies that are 100% adaptions, in which case it's pretty pointless for other people to come up with their own plots, because they will all be the same.

Herr Logan

07-05-2006, 03:16 PM

Oh, you can't even pretend to care? Now I know I have a heart, 'cause you done gone and broke it!

As I've explained, characters, powers, even Kryponite have been added by other multimedia adaptations. Can you imagine anyone calling Jimmy Olsen or Perry White "completely superfluous and completely absent from the comics Daily Planet" back when the radio serial came out?
Jimmy and Perry have now been in the comics (you know, the medium in which Superman started out and has consistently been published from the very beginning, whereas there hasn't been a TV show, movie franchise or radio serial that has consistently continued since then? Also, the medium which I defined at the top of each Safe Haven as the medium by which "faithful" is defined? You need time to go back and read, 'cuz I can wait!) for decades now. Well, I guess they could add a Super-Bastard named Baby Jason to the comics... oh wait, Superman and Lois are married, so I guess he wouldn't be a Super-Bastard! Unless someone pulled a J. Michael Straczinsky and made Lois an unfaithful whore just to attract the grocery check-out aisle magazine-reading demographic (which is always a possibility, God help us), there's no room in legitimate current canon for a child borne by Lois that may or may not be someone else's. If they had a movie where Lois and Superman got married and had a baby, that would probably be a stupid, sappy movie (especially if Brian "this is my first chick flick" Singer is directing it), but at least that element of it couldn't (specific circumstances notwithstanding) be called "completely unfaithful and out of synch with the comics." And don't pull any pre-Crisis excuses on me, because unless you can point out a specific issue that isn't a flat-out Elseworld's throwaway tale where Lois had a baby that she thought was someone's other than Superman's, that ain't gonna fly. I'm pretty sure Pre-Crisis canon has Superman and Lois having a baby, so that would be fine, but there probably isn't an idiotic, lowest-common-denominator love triangle there. Superman and Lois having a child is within the realm of the reasonable. Lois thinking she had someone else's child while Superman recklessly abandoned all he swore to protect is not. Not in the least.

As you probably saw in the original Safe Haven thread, I may have to give up my Kingdom to someone else, possibly you if you win a vote. If that happens, then you can butcher this thread franchise into whatever you want and take a leak on my grave while doing so, but until then, or if there isn't a "then," stop defending choices that aren't faithful to the comics!

:wolverine

Zev

07-05-2006, 03:45 PM

Jimmy and Perry have now been in the comics (you know, the medium in which Superman started out and has consistently been published from the very beginning, whereas there hasn't been a TV show, movie franchise or radio serial that has consistently continued since then? Also, the medium which I defined at the top of each Safe Haven as the medium by which "faithful" is defined? You need time to go back and read, 'cuz I can wait!) for decades now. Well, I guess they could add a Super-Bastard named Baby Jason to the comics... oh wait, Superman and Lois are married, so I guess he wouldn't be a Super-Bastard! Unless someone pulled a J. Michael Straczinsky and made Lois an unfaithful whore just to attract the grocery check-out aisle magazine-reading demographic (which is always a possibility, God help us), there's no room in legitimate current canon for a child borne by Lois that may or may not be someone else's. If they had a movie where Lois and Superman got married and had a baby, that would probably be a stupid, sappy movie (especially if Brian "this is my first chick flick" Singer is directing it), but at least that element of it couldn't (specific circumstances notwithstanding) be called "completely unfaithful and out of synch with the comics." And don't pull any pre-Crisis excuses on me, because unless you can point out a specific issue that isn't a flat-out Elseworld's throwaway tale where Lois had a baby that she thought was someone's other than Superman's, that ain't gonna fly. I'm pretty sure Pre-Crisis canon has Superman and Lois having a baby, so that would be fine, but there probably isn't an idiotic, lowest-common-denominator love triangle there. Superman and Lois having a child is within the realm of the reasonable. Lois thinking she had someone else's child while Superman recklessly abandoned all he swore to protect is not. Not in the least.

As you probably saw in the original Safe Haven thread, I may have to give up my Kingdom to someone else, possibly you if you win a vote. If that happens, then you can butcher this thread franchise into whatever you want and take a leak on my grave while doing so, but until then, or if there isn't a "then," stop defending choices that aren't faithful to the comics!

:wolverine

Bold, italics, and underlines? You're serious about this, aren't you?

Herr Logan

07-05-2006, 03:59 PM

Bold, italics, and underlines? You're serious about this, aren't you?

Aw, shucks... you noticed. :O

EDIT: I meant to say somewhere in my earlier post "Adding love triangles where none need be is one of the most cheap, uncreative, insipid and most low-brow writing maneuvers a screenwriter could pull!!"

I'm serious about that, but not hyped up about it enough to give it extra formatting.

:wolverine

Zev

07-05-2006, 04:17 PM

Herr Logan

07-05-2006, 04:42 PM

But, uh... isn't the entire Superman franchise the love triangle between Clark Kent, Lois Lane, and Clark Kent?

Not to mention the love triangle between Lex, Lois, and Kal-El they had in the comics. That would've been weird to see in a sequel to the Donner pics.

But, if it makes you feel any better, just mentally CTRL-H Richard White with Jimmy Olsen, Lois' platonic photographer buddy, and Jason White with... ummm... Kara Kent. Assume she came around between movies. There, now it's completely faithful to the comics.

Next time, I'll show you how Superman gets a new costume and becomes Superman Blue. And Clark gets a mullet.

Which is also faithful to the comics.

And people wonder why Batman is more popular than Superman...
Touche', you unscrupulous fiend.

When I said
Adding love triangles where none need be is one of the most cheap, uncreative, insipid and most low-brow writing maneuvers a screenwriter could pull!!, I meant to say "where none need be and especially if it wasn't there in its original incarnation...."

As you well know, the so-called love triangle between Superman, Lois Lane and Clark Kent has been a staple of comics continuity from early on, and while it's inexcusably irritating to see something like the Batman/Chase Meridian/Bruce Wayne love triangle from 'Batman Forever' or the entire Spider-Man/MJ/Peter bull***** (again, and especially if it wasn't there in its original incarnation...), Action Comics is where the trend of using this entire of love triangles in superhero stories began.

The same can be said about the whole "perpetual damsel in distress" cliche. While it's absolutely unforgivable to cram something like that into a Spider-Man movie franchise (and yes, I'm talking about it happening to the same character again and again for no reason, not Gwen Stacy getting offed by the Green Goblin), as I told Hunter Rider earlier in this thread, Superman began that trend for superhero stories, so it's appropriate to use for his movies, to whatever point a reasonable fan could stand it.

What's CTRL-H got to do anything? That brings up my Internet history (that reminds me, I'd better clear that, pronto!). What are you talking about? I'm not up on the hip slang the cool kids are using these days. I ain't got the 411, know what I'm sayin'?

:wolverine

Zev

07-05-2006, 08:05 PM

Herr Logan

07-05-2006, 08:28 PM

I'll admit, in Spider-Man I would've written it so when Peter starts walking away from the unbelievably hot woman who's warm for her form, I'd have MJ say "Is this because you're Spider-Man? 'Cause I kinda figured that out when your arch-nemesis kidnapped me specifically because you had a crush on me. Or are you gay for Harry?" But then, that's because I'm edgy and I like to throw bait to the slashers now and then. As you should know from reading my Spider-Man 6 script, where Eddie was clearly expressing latent homosexual urges for Peter by trying to kill him. See, it's subtext. It works on so many levels.
You're a hero in that way, Zev...

And just so you know, a lowest common denominator love triangle would be one where the non-hero man steps aside (because while he's a Nice Guy, but not The One. Read, he doesn't set the heroine's loins on fire) or where the part of the love triangle outside the star couple is a big jerk so that the woman can have a bit of "you go girl" empowerment and tell him off/smack him one, like in Titanic. In other words, one will the emotional mess of a woman having to choose one man out of two is negated by the decision being made easy or being decided for her, such as one of the men being killed.
Any love triangle in a superhero movie that isn't based on the source material (see 'Superman Returns,' 'Fantastic Four,') and isn't portrayed exactly like it was in the comics (see X-Men films 1-3) is a lowest-common-denominator love triangle. Any superfluous love triangle is a lowest-common-denominator love triangle.

And you should be pleased about Spider-Man 3, where they're apparently going to have a Peter/MJ/Gwen love triangle, which is direct from the comic books.
The only thing about 'Spider-Man 3' tht pleases me is that they've finally screwed it up so much that I no longer have to self-monitor myself when I say the entire movie is a piece of crap, and that the people who are vehemently defending the drastic alterations from the source material are not real fans of the real Spider-Man. I wished and prayed for the ambiguity and the shades of gray (the previous villains were extremely well cast, even though the first was horribly dressed and the second was horribly written, but now they don't have any of that going for them) to dissolve, and now it has. I have no hesitation when I say those things, and I'm a huge stickler for people being accurate in their speech/writing, as you may have learned.

Why would I be happy about the love triangle in particular? It's not straight from the comics. Not in the least. The real Spider-Man isn't anywhere to be found in any of these movies for more than a couple of seconds, barring the beautifully done full CGI scenes of the web-swinging in the first one. Movie!Peter and Movie!Spider-Man are nothing like the comics version, despite the costume and a few of the special effects (and I do mean few). Movie!MJ isn't anything like the real Mary Jane, and I have no big expectations from Movie!Gwen. Again, why would I be happy with this? I'm assuming you were appealling to the comics fan in me when you asked that question.

On the other hand-- if you were appealling to the nihilist in me-- if it's supremely bad and as far from the comics as Movie!Venom, Green Goblin Jr's costume and Movie!Sandman's personal history (having a wife and killing Uncle Ben), then that will make me very happy, since they'll have maintained a steady level of pure crappiness instead of fluctuating like they did in the previous two.

There's a chance I won't see the movie, though. I'll be terribly disappointed if I don't get to. :(

:wolverine

Zev

07-05-2006, 08:51 PM

One, I'm pretty sure Sandman didn't kill Uncle Ben, and second, could you not spoil me for upcoming movies that I'm looking forward to? Do not mess with me, man, or I will descibe in excrutiating detail plot developments from Smallville.

For example, did you know Smallville introduced the "Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue" problem into Super-canon? That's right. Clark is actually worried about his super-sperm super-shooting so hard that it renders the difference between missionairy sex and anal sex moot.

Now, I trust we understand each other... or do I have to start telling you about what they did to Lois?

Zev

07-05-2006, 09:47 PM

But back to the story. I think a scene something like this (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9410546#post9410546) should be the first scene directly after the credits, in which we see Superman in costume (in the opening he's in the lead spacesuit) for the first time. Just, ya know, minus the gratuitous Batman references.

Although it would be fun to have a scene where Superman stopped by Gotham to offer help to Batman if he needs it and Batman just totally blows him off.

Herr Logan

07-05-2006, 09:57 PM

One, I'm pretty sure Sandman didn't kill Uncle Ben, and second, could you not spoil me for upcoming movies that I'm looking forward to? Do not mess with me, man, or I will descibe in excrutiating detail plot developments from Smallville.

What exactly did I spoil for you? Was it the part where Movie!Gobby Jr. looks like something out of the Sega Genesis game Kid Chameleon? The part where the only Movie!Venom casting choice I would have initially expected less than Topher Grace is Andy Dick? The part where every single supervillain in that movie franchise is required to have a deep, personal connection to Movie!Peter, thus rendering the whole "power and responsibility" theme decimated, if not completely obliterated for the semmingly preferred theme of "gotta take care o' my people, 'else I got nothin' to pine about"?

For example, did you know Smallville introduced the "Man of Steel, Woman of Tissue" problem into Super-canon? That's right. Clark is actually worried about his super-sperm super-shooting so hard that it renders the difference between missionairy sex and anal sex moot.

I know you're making that ***** up. Yeah, they've been throwing sex at the audience since early on, but I can't believe they would even broach those subjects.

Also, we don't talk about anal sex in the Safe Haven, Zev. Yes, this is a thread franchise based on putting our greatest fantasies out there for the rest of the true fans, but I think I made some pretty distinct guidelines as to what we're supposed to be discussing and/or proposing. Take it back to the Mondy Funky whatever thread where the Sodomy King himself-- Elijya-- can appreciate your imagination.

Now, I trust we understand each other... or do I have to start telling you about what they did to Lois?

Made her an undercover stripper? Made her Clark Kent's shower buddy? What do I care, it's 'Smallville,' and thus could not have less to do with the real Superman.

:wolverine

Zev

07-05-2006, 10:32 PM

You can't fool me. You know as well as I do that backwash from Smallville spilled into Birthright, Superman's new Post-Crisis origin. Thus, I can frighten you with Smallville all I want!

For example, did you know that Lois Lane shows no journalistic initiative and instead feeds off the kindness of strangers, living in other people's houses while insulting them to their faces? Also, she's a high-school drop-out. And a boozehound.

And thanks to Infinite Crisis, this could all be the New World Superman canon! BWAHAHAHA!

I would tell you what they did to Lex Luthor and Clark Kent's relationship, but since you can't talk about... errr... nal-ay ex-say here, it'd be kinda pointless.

Anyway, back on topic.

Ummm...

What was the topic again?

Herr Logan

07-05-2006, 11:14 PM

Zev

07-06-2006, 12:05 AM

Right, okay.

First of all, Superman Returns took an important step from Pre-Crisis to Post-Crisis by making Lex Luthor inherit all that money (on the minus side, the CGI in the flashback was a little weak and the flashback on a whole was kinda pointless). Plus, so long as he doesn't starve to death on that desert island, it's his word (and as many attorneys as he can hire) against Lois Lane, Lois' kid, and Superman. So I'm guessing he's going to stay a free man for the foreseeable future.

While I wouldn't like to see him remain the main villain (Psst! Brainiac! Brainiac!), I would like to see him at least as a threat or even a nuisance. In the next movie, he should be smearing Superman in the public eye or making billions off the stock market or somehow collaborating with the villains. Possibly even making a villain, like Metallo or Parasite.

It's not that you can't make a Superman movie without using Lex Luthor. It's just... why would you want to? A Superman movie without Lex Luthor is like a day without sunshine and a day without sunshine is like... night.

Plot-wise, keep up the soap opera. One thing I hated about the original movies (and later, the Smallville TV series) was that they always went back to the status quo of "woman doesn't know Clark's secret, Clark's in love with her but they can't be together because of X, lather, rinse, repeat." Some forward motion on the plots, please. Something should change by the end, permanently. Even if Superman doesn't get together with Lois Lane, let her find out he's really Clark Kent or blow up the Fortress of Solitude or something.

Herr Logan

07-06-2006, 12:12 AM

Right, okay.

First of all, Superman Returns took an important step from Pre-Crisis to Post-Crisis by making Lex Luthor inherit all that money (on the minus side, the CGI in the flashback was a little weak and the flashback on a whole was kinda pointless). Plus, so long as he doesn't starve to death on that desert island, it's his word (and as many attorneys as he can hire) against Lois Lane, Lois' kid, and Superman. So I'm guessing he's going to stay a free man for the foreseeable future.

Superman's word would carry a lot of weight... if he hadn't abandoned the Earth for no good reason!!

Wait, what flashback?

While I wouldn't like to see him remain the main villain (Psst! Brainiac! Brainiac!), I would like to see him at least as a threat or even a nuisance. In the next movie, he should be smearing Superman in the public eye or making billions off the stock market or somehow collaborating with the villains. Possibly even making a villain, like Metallo or Parasite.

Sounds good.

It's not that you can't make a Superman movie without using Lex Luthor. It's just... why would you want to? A Superman movie without Lex Luthor is like a day without sunshine and a day without sunshine is like... night.

Exactly.

Plot-wise, keep up the soap opera. One thing I hated about the original movies (and later, the Smallville TV series) was that they always went back to the status quo of "woman doesn't know Clark's secret, Clark's in love with her but they can't be together because of X, lather, rinse, repeat." Some forward motion on the plots, please. Something should change by the end, permanently. Even if Superman doesn't get together with Lois Lane, let her find out he's really Clark Kent or blow up the Fortress of Solitude or something.

Fair enough.

:wolverine

Zev

07-06-2006, 12:38 AM

Superman's word would carry a lot of weight... if he hadn't abandoned the Earth for no good reason!!

Wait, what flashback?

The flashback to Clark Kent discovering he could fly... errr, hover. Yeah, sure, it was neat and captured how sweet it would be to jump old-school-Superman-style, but what was the point?

Singer should've saved it for the director's cut.

Also, just to add a few retroactive notes on the whole proposed "Superman Fights Back" thing. During the Superman/Luthor confrontation (one of the things I disliked about Superman Returns was that it felt like Lex Luthor and Superman were in two separate movies until the third act), Superman notes that Lexcorp Tower will be the tallest skyscraper in Metropolis, but as tall as Lex builds it, "I'll still be able to fly over it."

Then Lex tells him, sotto voce, that he made his Kryponite ring out of the same shiv he stabbed Superman with (the part he didn't leave buried between Superman's ribs). Can you imagine how intense that scene would be, especially considering that neither of them could attack the other due to the press being there? Although admittedly, hearing the slashers go on about it would be annoying. "Lex Luthor's talking about the time he penetrated Superman, they are totally gay for each other!"

On the character front, maybe make Clark obsessed with bringing Luthor down. He nearly died, Lois nearly died, because of this guy, it makes sense he'd be in the mood for a little payback. Of course, this is Superman, not Batman, so by the end he forgives Luthor, which obviously pisses Luthor off more than anything else he could do.

By the way, how do you feel about the scene of Superman saving Stephanie Brown?

Triligors

07-06-2006, 12:59 AM

It's surprising how still after all this time, Zev and I still kind of see eye on eye with some things. Once again, thanks for all your work on Spider-Man: The Series dude, you're definitely a great writer.

That's where I see the sequel somewhat headed as well. Lex Luthor inherited all of this money for a reason. Not just to have a cool looking set design with the Vanderworth mansion. Lex is more than likely going to use this money to set the foundations for LexCorp. That was one thing I noticed immediately on my first viewing of the film.

It was a great step toward post-crises. What many people don't realize is that Superman: The Movie mythos, unlike any other superhero film that came before it, is so well known that to create a totally different world would really throw ALOT of people for a loop. It's more known than Batman (the Burton film). And with Batman Begins, one of the still most common misunderstandings is that it was not a prequel to Batman. Thus, it's common sense that if they would have launched directly into post crises there would be many confused viewers of the general audience- "since when did Lex Luthor become a business man?". Now, Lex has all of this money and he's certainly going to use it- and I think he'll more than likely use it to build the foundation of LexCorp, and the general audience would not be confused because it fits with what they know. Lex loves power and land and Lex just got this **** load of money.

Thus, yeah- definitely in the sequel we will probably see more of a transition from pre-crises to post-crises. And more than likely the reason we didn't see post-crises right away is because it would confuse alot of the general viewing public, especially those who are very familiar with the Donners films. So, in looking at SR as a first installment- I personally think that Singer did a great job. Yes it could have been better- more Clark Kent, less Lois Lane, and toss in a supervillain; all of which Bryan probably has in plan- he already mentioned other Kryptonians in an interview as a possibility.

Herr Logan

07-06-2006, 01:03 AM

The flashback to Clark Kent discovering he could fly... errr, hover. Yeah, sure, it was neat and captured how sweet it would be to jump old-school-Superman-style, but what was the point?

Singer should've saved it for the director's cut.

Ah, I see.

Also, just to add a few retroactive notes on the whole proposed "Superman Fights Back" thing. During the Superman/Luthor confrontation (one of the things I disliked about Superman Returns was that it felt like Lex Luthor and Superman were in two separate movies until the third act), Superman notes that Lexcorp Tower will be the tallest skyscraper in Metropolis, but as tall as Lex builds it, "I'll still be able to fly over it."

Cool dialogue.

Then Lex tells him, sotto voce, that he made his Kryponite ring out of the same shiv he stabbed Superman with (the part he didn't leave buried between Superman's ribs). Can you imagine how intense that scene would be, especially considering that neither of them could attack the other due to the press being there? Although admittedly, hearing the slashers go on about it would be annoying. "Lex Luthor's talking about the time he penetrated Superman, they are totally gay for each other!"

Cool dialogue again.

You have a preoccupation with gay slash fan-fic. You know this.

On the character front, maybe make Clark obsessed with bringing Luthor down. He nearly died, Lois nearly died, because of this guy, it makes sense he'd be in the mood for a little payback. Of course, this is Superman, not Batman, so by the end he forgives Luthor, which obviously pisses Luthor off more than anything else he could do.

Heh! Forgiveness is the best revenge when it comes to evil, hateful people. That and taking away their power and leaving them in prison.

By the way, how do you feel about the scene of Superman saving Stephanie Brown?

You mean in a new hypothetical movie, or is this something that happened in 'Superman Returns'?

:wolverine

Zev

07-06-2006, 01:08 AM

You have a preoccupation with gay slash fan-fic. You know this.

I know this? Just yesterday I marathon-wrote a series of lesbian porn ficlets in honor of our nation's Independence Day. Mystique-as-Jean and Emma Frost sex? HOT.

And the existence of gay slash fanfic will never stop being funny. We slash women all the time, who knew they slashed us back?

You mean in a new hypothetical movie, or is this something that happened in 'Superman Returns'?

:wolverine

Hypothetical movie.

Zev

07-06-2006, 01:12 AM

Triligors

07-06-2006, 01:22 AM

Ended a while ago here at SHH. Lots of people liked it.

Sent it over to kryptonsite recently, since it's generally a similar concept as Smallville. A young superhero. For the most part LOTS seemed to have loved the Pilot episode and still waiting for reactions on the next two eps.

Also, it had great reviews when it was over at fanfiction.net.

So, it's looking pretty good fan wise. Not to mention I might be able to attain a phenomenal contact within my next couple of years at college- Hofstra University, one of their alumni is Avi Arad!!! So, looks like everything is really falling into place.

Herr Logan

07-06-2006, 02:10 AM

I know this? Just yesterday I marathon-wrote a series of lesbian porn ficlets in honor of our nation's Independence Day. Mystique-as-Jean and Emma Frost sex? HOT.

And the existence of gay slash fanfic will never stop being funny. We slash women all the time, who knew they slashed us back?

You knew it, Zev. You did. :up

Hypothetical movie.

Why is Superman saving Stephanie Brown exactly? Is this a reference from the comics, or what?

:wolverine

Zev

07-06-2006, 02:49 AM

Why is Superman saving Stephanie Brown exactly? Is this a reference from the comics, or what?

:wolverine

It's just a cute little scene. I mean, it's Superman saving a little girl and having a cutesy conversation with her. Doesn't get much more complicated than that.

Herr Logan

07-06-2006, 08:05 AM

It's just a cute little scene. I mean, it's Superman saving a little girl and having a cutesy conversation with her. Doesn't get much more complicated than that.
Well, it's not much of an Easter Egg, considering Stephanie Brown probably isn't an instantly recognizable figure for the majority of the audience and I haven't heard about any notable relationship between the two characters, but it's not offensive, and that's something. Sure, go with it.

:wolverine

Herr Logan

07-06-2006, 12:26 PM

Something just occurred to me:

Among the long list of "new" and "different" elements that J.J. Abrams planned to bring to the Superman movie-verse, most of them deemed controversial, objectionable and flat-out abominable, why was the idea of polar bears being seen in the Fortress of Solitude grouped along with the others?

Remember, this is Herr Logan-- Spokeperson for the Intelligent Purist, Servant of the True Comics Fans, and Bitter Foe of Conformist Studio Apologists-- speaking, so when I question critics' arguments against an element of an adaptation that wasn't in the comics, it actually means something.
So, why is it a big deal for this concept-- in and of itself, apart from J.J.'s other absurd and shameful intended story elements-- to be introduced in a Superman movie? Is it because critics of J.J's agenda simply added it on to complete the list, or is it because there's a real problem with that specifically? Is there a specific way in which the polar bears would act, or something to do with their method of access in relation to how the Fortress was, if at all, sealed or guarded from the outside world?

I personally think it would be kind of cool to see polar bears hanging around the Fortress of Solitude, if everything else was highly accurate to comics continuity (pre- or post-Crisis; either one is valid, and I'm an expert in neither, unlike other superheroes' histories which are represented in other Safe Havens).

The way I understand it, polar bears live at the North Pole, which is where the Fortress of Solitude exists. Now, I don't know how exactly how this idea was to be implemented, and I don't know how the Fortress was meant to be sealed off from the outside world or how the polar bears got in or if they could come and go. I guess it would be safe to assume Abram's treatment did not include a Fortress of Solitude that was accurate to the comics.
In the comics, the Fortress traditionally required a massive, ridiculously large and heavy key that few people other than Superman could use. If this was kept intact in a movie, then the bears would have to remain inside, or have something along the lines of electronic tags worn or attached to them that activated an opening somewhere, or a button they could press that was well-hidden or inaccessable to most human beings. Or maybe the Fortress wouldn't be sealed off at all, like the one in the various Superman movies, including 'Superman Returns.'
In any case the reason I think it would be reasonable is because, again, polar bears supposedly live in the same region as the Fortress, and also because Superman not only respects all life, but cannot be harmed by polar bears, even though they are the strongest and most fearsome animals native to the planet Earth that are still alive. I wouldn't even be surprised if Superman could communicate with them, which would afford him an understanding of whether the bears were likely to mess with his stuff. That's the biggest issue, really, whether or not they'd mess with his stuff. Anyway, that's my take on the situation.

Yes, I am indeed killing time while waiting for the bus that provides the simplest ride back home, and no, there was absolutely no need for this post. I thank you for your time and apologize for wasting it.
Have a blessed day, and do unto others as you'd have done unto you,and when a studio apologist is insulting towards you, tear their Goddamn, bootlicking, servile throats out and dance in their blood, because you know they'd do the same to you if they had half a chance!

:wolverine

EDIT: I could be confusing J.J. Abrams' ideas with Jon Peters' ideas. Apologies if I am.

Zev

07-06-2006, 01:17 PM

Herr Logan

07-10-2006, 11:21 AM

Well, as I understand it (and thus as it really happened), Kevin Smith had a scene in his Superman script where Brainiac and L-Ron (the "gay black robot" Jon Peters wanted in the script) entered the Fortress of Solitude. Jon Peters wanted an action beat, like he fights Superman's guards. Who are polar bears. Kevin Smith wanted to know why Superman would need guards, because he's Superman. I can agree that maybe Superman should have a forcefield or even a locked door (after all, that big crystal palace should be pretty easy to find, if you're looking for it), but polar bear guards? That Brainiac fights? It's just stupid.

Also, as long as we're adapting bits from the comics, can we include the scene where Superman films a porno?

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/6237/superman2rf.jpg

Brainiac fighting polar bears is indeed stupid. Superman having guards isn't necessarily a stupid idea, but having the bears doing the guarding? Granted, they are the nastiest creatures in the Animal Kingdom aside from humans, but that's why they wouldn't only guard effectively against anything other than humans-- or things more advanced and dangerous than humans. Who would they protect against? Penguins?

Anyway, I didn't realize they were supposed to be a legitimate line of defense. I thought maybe they were just pets or just animals Supes let wander around his clubhouse at their leisure, since that is the kind of person Superman is (someone who loves animals and isn't afraid of polar bears).
If it wasn't an unreasonable expense, I'd have some polar bears just hanging out in the Fortress and have Superman casually pet them and toss them some enormous steaks or something when he stopped by. But yeah, if I was going to have Brainiac attack the Fortress, I wouldn't pretend that regular Earth polar bears were a line of freakin' defense against any intruders that could give Superman trouble.

:wolverine

Zev

07-11-2006, 11:45 PM

Herr Logan

07-12-2006, 11:17 AM

Possibly a little outside this thread's purview, but any Superman movie featuring Brainiac and Lex Luthor teaming up, even if only briefly, must feature a callback to the picture below in the poster (I think it would be a welcome change from Christ symbolism/character in cool pose; someone I would like to say to each and every cover artist working in the comics industry as well).

http://supermanica.info/wiki/images/5/5d/Superman_167.jpg

Imagine seeing that hung up at your local megaplex, only with real actors (or a CGI Brainiac if they choose to go that direction). I think that would pretty much absolve the WB of everything up to cancelling Justice League Unlimited.

The trunks would still be tiny, but at least they'd be okay in proportion, since Superman would be tiny, too!

I'm not exactly rooting for a tiny caged Superman, but if it meant we'd get a supervillain who could actually take on Superman physically, I'd be open to it.

There's a lot of fuss over Superman's less than heroic performance in 'Superman Returns' when Lex and the gang are beating the ever-loving **** out of Superman on the New Kryptonian island. Apologists try to defend it by saying Superman was weak from the Kyrtonite. Funny how he seemed well enough to lift an entire Kryptonite island up to the edge of the atmosphere, while a shard was still lodged in his torso. I don't buy that the suns nurturing rays made him able to do all that when he couldn't defend himself against a group of thugs earlier, before he had a piece of it in his body. Yeah, Kryptonite weakens and hurts him, but that only means a God damn thing if you've got a heavy hitter going after him. At least that's the impression I got from the completely improbable (in context) things he did while beaten, touching Kryptonite and housing a jagged shard in his own body. They were incredibly inconsistent, and there's no excuse for it.

I hear the movie's not doing too well compared to projections and previous records. Golly, I never thought that an extremely lackluster script, a laughable attempt at an extremely simple costume to get right, and the damning remark made by Brian Singer that this was his first "chick flick" could have such an impact. Hell, 'Spider-Man 2' did amazingly well, and it had a horrendously bad script and clearly was a God damn chick flick. Oh wait, they actually got a very complicated classic costume right, and Sam Raimi didn't outright announce the shameful fact that he used hundreds of millions of dollars on a chick flick. Well, that explains it, then.

:wolverine

Zev

07-15-2006, 10:58 PM

I watched the pilot episode of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman on BitTorrent... man, that takes me back. I have family in Ohio that recorded that show and Full House on VHS. This was in the days before DVD boxsets, when video-taping was the only way to save a show you liked. I remember having Tiny Toons: How I Spent My Summer Vacation on a tape before my dad taped over it.

But I digress.

It's pretty amazingly faithful to the comics so far, considering the constraints of a TV budget. It packs more imagination and clever writing into its hour than Smallville does with all of its multimillion-dollar budget. The characters are likeable and well-cast, they've got the archetypial Perry White, Lex Luthor has his post-Crisis origin (Jimmy Olsen tells us that he's a "rags to riches" story)... and there's even a bit of the Lex/Lois/Clark triangle (the one where Clark is secretly in love with Lois while she's not-so-secretly in love with Superman while Lex is attracted to Lois). Sure, Lex has hair, but he did in the Bryne comics too, so that's forgiveable. I'd really like to see what the team behind it could do with the kind of budget Smallville gets.

That, and the pilot has a montage set to Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out For A Hero" where Clark Kent tries on prospective costumes, including (I swear to God) Daredevil, Golden Age Flash, and Captain America outfits (they're just disguised enough not to violate copyright, but to the trained eye...).

And you've got to appreciate the final exchange between Luthor and Superman. Having heard Lex brag about his owning the tallest tower in the city by saying "I like the feeling of people having to look up to see me," Superman's kiss-off line to Lex before he flies up, up, and away is "If you ever need to find me, all you have to do is look up." There! That's the basis of the Superman/Luthor hatred, not Lex stealing Clark's girl or whatever.

Herr Logan

07-16-2006, 01:47 PM

Zev

07-16-2006, 01:53 PM

The biggest problem with 'Lois & Clark' was the extremely mushy, extremely repetitive crap that became incessant when those two crazy kids finally found their way into each other's hearts.

:wolverine

Ahhh... the old Moonlighting problem.

Of course, it's thinking like that which leads to Quesada's vendetta against Peter and Mary-Jane's marriage. So I guess it's just a no-win situation.

Herr Logan

07-16-2006, 02:11 PM

Ahhh... the old Moonlighting problem.

Of course, it's thinking like that which leads to Quesada's vendetta against Peter and Mary-Jane's marriage. So I guess it's just a no-win situation.

No, being against cheesy writing does not equal being against a marriage. If people can't write a couple decently, then they shouldn't be writing them, period.

I wasn't crazy about the Peter/MJ marriage once I'd read a good deal of pre-marriage stories, either. That doesn't mean I'd break them up or kill MJ, though. At this point, if I actually wanted to respect the character of Spider-Man (which is something they haven't done for years), I would never try to get rid of her under the impression that Peter would get over it. He wouldn't. At this point, it really, really doesn't matter. There is no real Spider-Man anymore, so it's completely irrelevant what they do with his marriage.

:wolverine

Zev

07-16-2006, 02:27 PM

What, we still have the real Spider-Man! Just because his secret identity is public, he wears a new suit, he has stingers and organic webbing, he has a mystical origin, and he occasionally smooches the identical daughter of the woman he used to love and his arch-enemy doesn't mean he...

Okay, yeah, I got nothing. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure that someday Marvel will have to give us back Spider-Man. This whole "Spider-Man Electric Blue" thing will pass and we'll all just agree to never, ever talk about it again, just like that whole Clone thing and the Black Cat being raped.

I think the problem isn't that people can't write marriage (or committed relationships, for that matter) good, it's that they're so afraid to even try that they sabotage it all the time. Batman and Catwoman are making eyes at each other, oops, she was brainwashed so it doesn't count! Dick Grayson just proposed to Barbara Gordon... and they broke up off-panel. Stephanie Brown and Tim Drake are dating... well, she's dead now, our boy's a swinging bachelor again. Wally West and Linda Park are happy together... now they've both been absorbed into the Speed Force and swinging bachelor Bart Allen is the Flash (and don't ask what happened to his girlfriend, Carol, because she abruptly disappeared in a downright Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxyesque manner). Ralph and Sue Dibny are a happily married couple... d'oh, she got raped and murdered while preggers. And don't get started on Wonder Woman, she's never been on a date in her life.

I realize it's a lot to ask, but could the comic book industry at least try giving the people what they want instead of always putting off the "they will" of "will they or won't they?" Because this industrywide commitmentphobia has got to go.

P.S. Could someone please explain to me why, if people would prefer stories of Spider-Man being single SO MUCH, do stories where he's happily married sell better than stories about other heroes that are single? I mean, if people care SO MUCH about his marital status...

The Sage

07-16-2006, 03:17 PM

There's a lot of fuss over Superman's less than heroic performance in 'Superman Returns' when Lex and the gang are beating the ever-loving **** out of Superman on the New Kryptonian island. Apologists try to defend it by saying Superman was weak from the Kyrtonite. Funny how he seemed well enough to lift an entire Kryptonite island up to the edge of the atmosphere, while a shard was still lodged in his torso. I don't buy that the suns nurturing rays made him able to do all that when he couldn't defend himself against a group of thugs earlier, before he had a piece of it in his body. Yeah, Kryptonite weakens and hurts him, but that only means a God damn thing if you've got a heavy hitter going after him. At least that's the impression I got from the completely improbable (in context) things he did while beaten, touching Kryptonite and housing a jagged shard in his own body. They were incredibly inconsistent, and there's no excuse for it.

Can't agree here completely. I think it made sense in the context. The boost from the sun, and his own determination made him able to lift the island. If a mother can lift a car off her child from pure adrenaline, then I believe what I saw was possible.

In any case, I'll be back with my ideas at another time. Good day Herr. ;)

Herr Logan

07-16-2006, 06:24 PM

Can't agree here completely. I think it made sense in the context. The boost from the sun, and his own determination made him able to lift the island. If a mother can lift a car off her child from pure adrenaline, then I believe what I saw was possible.

In any case, I'll be back with my ideas at another time. Good day Herr. ;)

Also be back with some significant criticisms of 'Superman Returns,' as that's the trade-off for disputing someone else's criticism as stated in the rules.

I've had some trolls in the other Safe Haven threads, so that's why I have to be strict about the rules for everyone. It's nothing personal, you understand.

:wolverine

Herr Logan

07-20-2006, 07:10 AM

Go to this thread now: it's Crisis on Infinite Safe Havens! (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9568845#post9568845)

Best of luck to you all, and thanks for all your contributions and support. :cool:

:wolverine

Zev

07-23-2006, 10:42 PM

I'm Taking Over (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9616735#post9616735)

Herr Logan

07-24-2006, 12:35 AM

Look again and read carefully. (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243174)

:wolverine

Bullseye

11-01-2006, 04:50 PM

Herr Logan

11-01-2006, 07:12 PM

I guess there are some who think Superman Returns was a debacle. So, with that, I was thinking why not go the animated way for a Superman film franchise. IMO, the way to go about making animated franchise would be to take some notes from Superman: TAS.

I'd be fine with an animated Superman movie, if written, animated, directed, etc. right. I'd be fine with animated versions of any of these classic superhero characters if done right.

However, there's no reason they couldn't do a proper live action Superman movie. The technology is there, the talent is out there, and all it takes is a director and writing team that care more about the characters than their own egos and whims and a good special effects budget and crew to make it happen. As for actors, if the casting director does their job properly, the actor will look perfect for the role, and if the director and writers do their jobs properly, he/she will behave exactly how he/she should. If the costume creator does their job correctly, then Superman will have a red cape, a BIG :super: that covers the chest and makes the actor look impressive, and shorts that look like Chris Reeve's and not like a swimmer's bikini briefs, with a beltline that doesn't sink low and make the actor look skinny and lanky.

I personally wasn't too impressed with Superman: TAS except for the episodes with Darkseid, but a lot of real Superman fans thought it did it justice and I have no particular complaints, so I'm all for using that as a strong reference point. There are a few key episodes of 'Justice League' that get me jazzed up about Superman as well.

What I really want to see is a live action World's Finest movie, with proper actors playing the roles of Superman (as in, not Brandon Routh) and Batman and proper costuming. By having them in the same world, it would force the writers to try to keep the characters grounded in what they truly are in the comics. All the time I see ignorant, anti-source material people basically saying that they don't want to see a Batman in his own movie that could co-exist with Superman, with all this "grounded in reality" nonsense. There's a middle ground, and anyone with an imagination can see it. In both a Batman franchise and a Superman franchise, the prospect of a team-up should be kept in mind, if only to keep the writers from straying too far into their own little self-gratifying paradigms when "reimagining" the characters.

Thanks for posting, Bullseye. :up:

:wolverine

symbioitemaster

11-01-2006, 07:16 PM

new here, can some-one tell me how to apply a avatar. please and thank-you.

Herr Logan

11-01-2006, 07:26 PM

new here, can some-one tell me how to apply a avatar. please and thank-you.

This is the wrong God damn forum for this issue. I get so few posts in this thread and get hopeful every time I see someone actually has posted, so yeah, it pisses me off when I see something like this.

Apparently you need 300 posts before you can upload an avatar now. When you get there, go here (http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137235).

If you want to post in this thread, read the rules and comply. Welcome to the God damn Hype.

:wolverine

Bullseye

11-01-2006, 07:59 PM

I'd be fine with an animated Superman movie, if written, animated, directed, etc. right. I'd be fine with animated versions of any of these classic superhero characters if done right.

However, there's no reason they couldn't do a proper live action Superman movie. The technology is there, the talent is out there, and all it takes is a director and writing team that care more about the characters than their own egos and whims and a good special effects budget and crew to make it happen. As for actors, if the casting director does their job properly, the actor will look perfect for the role, and if the director and writers do their jobs properly, he/she will behave exactly how he/she should. If the costume creator does their job correctly, then Superman will have a red cape, a BIG :super: that covers the chest and makes the actor look impressive, and shorts that look like Chris Reeve's and not like a swimmer's bikini briefs, with a beltline that doesn't sink low and make the actor look skinny and lanky.

I absolutely concur with the idea of Superman having a big 'S.' Mainly, the 'S' of Alex Ross' Superman.

I personally wasn't too impressed with Superman: TAS except for the episodes with Darkseid, but a lot of real Superman fans thought it did it justice and I have no particular complaints, so I'm all for using that as a strong reference point. There are a few key episodes of 'Justice League' that get me jazzed up about Superman as well.

What I really want to see is a live action World's Finest movie, with proper actors playing the roles of Superman (as in, not Brandon Routh) and Batman and proper costuming. By having them in the same world, it would force the writers to try to keep the characters grounded in what they truly are in the comics. All the time I see ignorant, anti-source material people basically saying that they don't want to see a Batman in his own movie that could co-exist with Superman, with all this "grounded in reality" nonsense. There's a middle ground, and anyone with an imagination can see it. In both a Batman franchise and a Superman franchise, the prospect of a team-up should be kept in mind, if only to keep the writers from straying too far into their own little self-gratifying paradigms when "reimagining" the characters.

I thought Sandy Collora took a step in the right direction with his World's Finest short film. Something to that degree would be just fine for me.

Thanks for posting, Bullseye. :up:

:wolverine

The Sage

11-01-2006, 09:52 PM

I think the size Jim Lee or Curt Swan drew the emblem is the perfect size IMO. Alex Ross' emblem never felt that appealing to me.

Bullseye

12-26-2006, 08:08 PM

I feel that Alex Ross' depiction of Superman is iconic and I would hope that the next time around the filmaker of a Superman film will adapt Ross' Superman to the big screen.

In your opinion Herr Logan, who is the ideal actor for Superman?

Herr Logan

12-27-2006, 08:14 PM

I feel that Alex Ross' depiction of Superman is iconic and I would hope that the next time around the filmaker of a Superman film will adapt Ross' Superman to the big screen.

If not the precise look of Superman (I do think Ross' version looks just slightly too old for a "present" story, rather than a 'Kingdom Come' type storyline), then at least get the same sense of majesty and greatness you get from Ross' paintings. But yeah, you've definitely got the right idea.

In your opinion Herr Logan, who is the ideal actor for Superman?

I honestly don't know. I just know he has to look unequivocally like Superman has traditionally looked. That includes being tall, broad, muscled like a Roman gladiator and looking like a man, preferably in his mid-thirties (unless it's another "beginning" story and he's fresh out of college or something).

Anyone with enough acting experience to be cast in any movie but isn't being cast based on raw sex appeal, nepotism (who your relatives are) or cronyism (who your friends are) and who fits the above description. This precludes Tom Welling and Brandon Routh.

To tell you the truth, I think that, of the candidates that were being considered, I probably would have voted for Brendan Fraser. He has the look, no longer looks like a teenager or college-age guy, and I know he can act well when the script is decent.

I don't know what plot I'd write for an ideal and faithful Superman movie, but I know for sure that I would be far more reserved with this than with the other properties in terms of adding layers and straddling the line between versimilitude and pure fantasy. I'll freely admit to being open to a certain degree of change for most of the other superhero properties I've considered-- not nearly as open as the seeming majority of forum users here are, but open enough to change certain major events (leaving out the first and final parts of the X-Men's Phoenix Saga) and some major costumes (the original X-Men's, Wolverine's) a little bit when I think it's a better fit for a movie's timeframe and aesthetic medium. I've chosen to emphasize certain elements of certain characters in various properties that haven't been explored much in TV and movie adaptations. That wouldn't be true for Superman, at least as far as his personality/psychology, early history or physical appearance.

There would be absolutely no "signature" changes to the costume, for one thing. After seeing the movie or spoiler pics, nobody would refer to the costume used as the "Herr Logan suit" as one might refer to the 'Superman Returns' costume as the "Singer suit" or "Routh suit." It's simply a matter of picking the best and most recognizable version of the classic design and not trying to sex it up or darken it up. It would be bright, bold and iconic, not a dark burgundy cloak and a skimpy bikini. Some people think that costume is "dated" or "cheesy." Those people can go **** themselves if they think that's any reason to change it. Newsflash, people: Superman is "dated" and "cheesy," so either accept him as he is or don't talk about what you want to see in a Superman movie.

There would be no Earth-shattering changes or additions to the mythos. No new love interests, no completely out-of-character actions (leaving the Earth for 5 years on a whim when he still had business to take care of), and absolutely no God damn Superbabies! I'd be okay with moving forward from current continuity (whatever that is... I don't read Superman regularly... hell, I haven't read any comics in months), but not if it takes it in a ridiculous direction laden with shock value. I basically wouldn't do anything, as a director, producer or writer, that would make me stand out much as far as Superman filmmakers go. This isn't a place to mess around and ***** on great American icons to stroke your own ego... it's Superman, God damn it. If you think he's boring the way he is in the comics, find another superhero movie to make, because there's no excuse for messing with this.

Well, perhaps it would be note-worthy for me to go back to Superman's thematic roots and portray him as someone who is not entirely beloved by or loving of the local and federal governments. Superman was a wish fulfillment fantasy laden with undertones of social commentary. Green Arrow is certainly a more blatant example, but Superman was also a figure who stepped in and served and protected people who weren't being protected or served by those charged with that duty.
I'm not sure how I'd do this, and I'd certainly be careful not to make him come off like Frank Miller's Batman-- a fed-up, no-nonsense revolutionary who'd sooner see the system crash altogether than to change his methods at the law's command-- but this is a theme I could see myself attempting that hasn't been attempted in a movie yet. I'd be just as comfortable with having Superman be the government's sweetheart and even a deputized member of the Metropolis Police Department. Just know that if I portrayed Superman as a person who acts when others will not act and commits acts of rebellion against legal institutions (i.e. doesn't stop fighting crime when told to, resists arrest, physically alters a piece of the environment to help people when there's a legal injunction against anyone doing it), it wouldn't be to make Superman "gritty," "dark" or more "realistic." It would be simply to explore an aspect of Superman's metafictional origins (what he did early on and what that represented for real life). He'd be just as personable and civil as he's always been, even when addressing armed police or military out to shoot him, and he wouldn't be any more violent than he is in the animated series (which is plenty violent enough, even by my action-hungry standards). I might possibly portray Metropolis and the world at large as a grittier place than in previous Superman movies, but that would only serve to make Superman even more "pure," which is fine by me.

Superman is often seen as "too perfect." Screw that. If you can't think of a way to make a decent, interesting story that involves a mostly-perfect character that's nigh-invulnerable and has more superpowers than you can count on one hand, then you aren't creative enough, or you aren't interested enough in the subject matter involved in superhero fiction. The way I see it, if there has to be a "moral of the story" in a Superman movie, it should be that humans need to learn to take a risk, swallow their pride and accept help from people-- even strangers-- occasionally when they're in need. I could just as easily make a story that says the exact opposite, using different characters, and I might agree with that one more, but since the former is a perfectly valid moral for a superhero story and is occasionally true, I'm fine with it.
The moral could go for Superman as well, and he could reveal his true identity to Lois (without subsequently delivering an "amnesia kiss," therefore taking a huge risk.

Again, I don't know what the plot would be, but it would have plenty of action, that's for damn sure. It was called "Action Comics," so don't anybody dare give me any crap about how a faithful adaptation would just be a series of "boring fights." Superman is an action hero, not the star of a "chick flick." Bryan Singer actually said, proudly and self-satisfied, in exact words, that 'Superman Returns' was his "first chick flick."
**** Bryan Singer. Serious, **** him and his repulsively overblown and misbegotten ego.

Thanks for posting, Bullseye. Got me thinking about this subject again after a long time of not doing so. :up:

:wolverine

Bullseye

12-27-2006, 08:50 PM

In my opinion, Superman is one of the more tougher characters to cast. I also have a tough time deciding who would be a superb choice to be cast as Daredevil. I'm sure there are others, but those two are tough to figure out as far as casting goes.

I got some idea of how I would Superman to look after I watched World's Finest and Grayson. Both of those fan films had a Superman with a broad and strong physique.

Adding loads and loads of action into the film would be phenomenal.

For the plot of the film, I would like to see Jeph Loeb write a Superman film. IMO, Loeb's greatest works are when he writes Kryptonians and The Batman. So, I think he could deliver a solid script for a Superman film.

Super-Bats

01-03-2007, 12:24 PM

Herr Logan

01-04-2007, 01:22 AM

hey herr logan,

I was disappointed in SR. Shortly after the movie came out, I created a thread detailing my ideas of an Origin/Restart movie using some of the better scenes/elements from SR.

If you'd like, check it out here:

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246373

I hope you like it, as I think it fits with the theme of this thread.

Welcome to the Haven, super-bats. :up:

I think the treatment/synopsis you posted is great. I agree with some of the posters in that thread with regard to Lex Luthor growing up in Smallville. I do acknowledge that there's a Pre-Crisis basis for Lex and Clark being friends back in the day, but I'm wary of that particular plot aspect. I'm also absolutely against anything that resembles the abominable TV series 'Smallville' more than it needs to. My preferred version of Lex Luthor is the one who had his parents killed for their insurance money when he was 14. On 'Smallville,' that was Lionel Luthor, but in the comics, Lex was the one who did it, and that's what I want to see. By having Luthor be that kind of murderous, ruthless bastard, you could very well use him as a sole supervillain of the movie. Clark's chosen profession as a journalist should reflect his dedication to the truth (even though he's a habitual liar when it comes to his true origins and activities as an extralegal, volunteer crimefighter), and picking up on Lois Lane's mission of exposing Luthor as the corrupt gangster that he is (as opposed to the magnanimous philanthropist people think he is) is a good way to lead in from Clark setting up his situation in the world to Superman making life-long enemies.
I'm also perfectly amenable to having General Zod or another superpowered criminal. The plot you came up with is plenty workable as far as I'm concerned, but I'd prefer Lex Luthor not having been friends with Clark.
I think you've got the right idea about what was appropriate and what wasn't in 'Superman Returns,' and how to make a better product after witnessing Singer's unfortunate attempt at a Superman movie.

I definitely agree that the emphasis should be placed on the Kents with regard to which parents steered Clark in the direction of being Superman. I'm also in favor of not going with Mario Puzo's Christ allegory anymore than absolutely necessary, which means not having Superman disappear for 12 years training with his father's disembodied presence. I'm all for having the Fortress of Solitude and Jor-El's holographic recordings/simulations, but I want him to have gone to college and had some real journalism experience before securing a prominent spot in the Daily Planet's city room. I'm thinking it could be shown and/or told that he split his time between college/work and the Fortress for several years, preparing to be a successful citizen of the Earth while in the U.S. and learning about his own history, physiology and abilities while in the Arctic.

I really like the idea of having Darkseid in a Superman movie. I would definitely have the Apokalips characters tie into Intergang, thus allowing a smooth and cinematic (high-tech gangsters and extremely powerful alien warlords... how can you beat that?) build-up from what concerns the newswriters of Metropolis to what concerns entire galaxies of intelligent life. I personally would not have General Zod working for Darkseid in any direct capacity. If Darkseid was keeping an eye on Zod's activities and that's the lead-in, then fine, but Darkseid has enough of his own goons and I think Zod should have his own ambitions apart from anything that's going down on Apokalips.

Thank you very much for posting here and sharing your ideas, super-bats. :up:

:wolverine