Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[Dark Knight]

Maybe but I wouldn't even want him to come up with the story. I just plain don't like his ideas.



I don't completely agree with his take on Superman either, but who knows what the heck is going on. Chances are his reboot pitch is in the running to for the gig, along with probably at least two more ideas. He sounds too confident right now, to be completely full of it. Plus you tie what Robinov said about exploring the darker side of Superman and his enemies, then you can see where Millars pitch may actually be in the running right now.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't completely agree with his take on Superman either, but who knows what the heck is going on. Chances are his reboot pitch is in the running to for the gig, along with probably at least two more ideas. He sounds too confident right now, to be completely full of it. Plus you tie what Robinov said about exploring the darker side of Superman and his enemies, then you can see where Millars pitch may actually be in the running right now.That all sounds plausable. Here's hoping he's blowing smoke again because I'd very disappointed if he has any involvement in the next Superman movie.

[Astrodust]

i dont like how he talked in the video.

he started to say that '' maybe starting next summer''. sorry but i need to know the name of the director. because it sounds like BS: he is saying that he is BIG.

Actually if the director he is talking about is Michael Bay then next summer is plausible. Bay pretty much goes one movie at a time so his schedule is pretty clear after Transformers 2. I think he's producing the remake of Friday the 13th or something like that.

A lot of people use the arguement that Transformers was a bad movie but look at the worldwide box office numbers. The studios love him. His movies can make big money and the mainstream audience likes it. Sorry but hardcore fan ravings don't count for much. Hardcore fans can't even agree with each other. The question is does WB want Superman to be the kind of movie Bay delivers. Worldwide, Superman is more famous then Spiderman and Batman. I think Superman could gross over a billion under Bay. Bay specializes in blockbusters.

We don't need Superman to be a soap opera or an oscar contender. If it is then great but we need Superman to be a hit. Superman is the titan that should hold the record for highest box office gross. To do that it has to appeal to the mainstream. It has to hit all the right notes like TDK. If Bay teams up with a good writer or writers then I say why not.

[COMPO]

to be honest i want Kevin Smith to do it... i've read his script for Superman and i seriously wanna see a Giant Spider lol

[I Am The Knight]

to be honest i want Kevin Smith to do it... i've read his script for Superman and i seriously wanna see a Giant Spider lol

1. Kevin Smith is kind of afraid of taking on big properties nowadays, so as to not "screw them."
2. Wasn't there a giant spider in Superman: Doomsday?

[bunk]

There was. Followed by an animated Kevin Smith.

[Anita18]

I'd worry more about getting a director willing to actually read a couple Superman comics and less about "Oscar-worthiness" and substance, especially if we have any hope of seeing any more super-powered slugfests in downtown Metropolis.
They don't have to be thinking consciously about Oscar-worthiness or substance or super-powered slugfests - their first priority should be compelling character motivations that lead to an equally compelling story.

Bay can make some pretty eye-catching explosions, but they're nothing more than eye-catching explosions to be forgotten in 5 minutes unless we care about the circumstances in which said things are exploding.

[Dark Knight]

They don't have to be thinking consciously about Oscar-worthiness or substance or super-powered slugfests - their first priority should be compelling character motivations that lead to an equally compelling story.

Bay can make some pretty eye-catching explosions, but they're nothing more than eye-catching explosions to be forgotten in 5 minutes unless we care about the circumstances in which said things are exploding.



Bays films lack balance, depth, substance and his characters are one dimensional just like his directing is.

[BMM]

They don't have to be thinking consciously about Oscar-worthiness or substance or super-powered slugfests - their first priority should be compelling character motivations that lead to an equally compelling story.

Bay can make some pretty eye-catching explosions, but they're nothing more than eye-catching explosions to be forgotten in 5 minutes unless we care about the circumstances in which said things are exploding.

Exactly.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That all sounds plausable. Here's hoping he's blowing smoke again because I'd very disappointed if he has any involvement in the next Superman movie.

Gotta agree with this, I dont want him anywere near it.

[Scarecrow_King]

I enjoy a lot of Millar's comic book stuff. his run on wolverine was great. and when i heard he was interested in the superman project, i got really excited.

and then i kinda started thinking about it. his style doesn't really fit with the big blue. his tones are much darker than anything i would really want to see in a superman movie. he took such a heroic character like captain america, and turned him into pretty much a jerk in the ultimates. i enjoy the ultimates, don't get me wrong. but if i were to see captain america on the big screen (which i can't wait for), i do NOT want to see an ultimate version. i want to the the 616 captain america. the hero and the idol that he's come to be. same with superman. he should be an icon: the big boy scout that everybody looks up to; that people refuse to see fail, morally and physically.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

I enjoy a lot of Millar's comic book stuff. his run on wolverine was great. and when i heard he was interested in the superman project, i got really excited.

and then i kinda started thinking about it. his style doesn't really fit with the big blue. his tones are much darker than anything i would really want to see in a superman movie. he took such a heroic character like captain america, and turned him into pretty much a jerk in the ultimates. i enjoy the ultimates, don't get me wrong. but if i were to see captain america on the big screen (which i can't wait for), i do NOT want to see an ultimate version. i want to the the 616 captain america. the hero and the idol that he's come to be. same with superman. he should be an icon: the big boy scout that everybody looks up to; that people refuse to see fail, morally and physically.
I completely agree with you wholeheartedly, but unfortunately times have changed. The majority of today's society would much rather see a dark figure that will rip someone's head off. With these "Graphic Novels", that's all they are, all gore and NO substance, IMO. Superman is the complete opposite of all that, and I wish that we could have a Superman movie as pure and clean as the original, but like I said times have changed. From my observation, people could care less about Truth, Justice and the American way nowadays. As long as someone is throwing a punch or shooting someone in the head, that seems to be all that matters. I personally would love to see a continuation of the Singer series, but that is just out of curiosity. I'm just scared that we are going to get what the people want, like the super villain, which I agree we should have, but that is not what it should be all about. You can't have a Superman story without Lois and Lex. So there has to be a love story mixed in with chaos, a few punches thrown but also giving a helping hand to a needy person for example. Do you see where I'm going? I just hope that we do get a Superman story, and for once let's stop *****ing about the suit for once and just GET OVER IT, that actually has some substance behind it. I still believe that we can have a pure Superman movie just with a modern touch, and one that will go down in history as one of the best Superman stories ever told.

[Scarecrow_King]

exactly. although i have to say i don't want to see singer's vision continue, it annoys the crap out of me with all this modern popularity.

RouthIsSuperman said that people don't care about Truth, Justice, and the American way. and he's 100% right. they didn't even say "The American Way" in Returns. what the &%$^ is that?!? i was livid when they did that.

WB needs to realize that what makes Superman's character so timeless and endearing is the fact that he remains different from all the stuff that's happening now. and its possible to make a movie that can incorporate modern themes while keeping that heart of the character so positive and good. that in itself would be a great theme to explore, how superman can remain so pure in today's modern times.

[zmystico]

I'm more a DC than Marvel fan...and total Batman fanatic. However, I wasn't able to sit through SR, it was awful beyond belief. Kevin Spacey was the only redeeming quality in the film although his Lex wasn't as good as Hackman's. The whole idea of making Superman (the "good cop" of DC's "good cop/bad cop" duo) was too much to bear. Then to have Lois Lane, the one person whom Supes has saved more times than he should have lead a march to say "We don't need Superman anymore" was ridiculous. SR was more like a bad soap opera script than comic book film. I'm all for totally rebooting and reintroducing Superman, similar to how Nolan did with Batman. Not step for step, but Nolan did an excellent job of reintroducing the Dark Knight as well as the Joker. I don't think Supes should be as "dark" but certainly he should be as troubled as Batman was.

[hippie_hunter]

How bad was the Miller's scripts, WB rejected before?

Millar wasn't rejected because his ideas were bad. He was rejected because his ideas were a reboot when Warner Bros. wanted to do a sequel.

[hippie_hunter]

2. Wasn't there a giant spider in Superman: Doomsday?
Kevin Smith was in Superman: Doomsday making fun of the giant spider. He really hated that concept. That was all Jon Peters.

I really love how Timm is completely unafraid to make fun people of Joel Schumacher and Jon Peters in subtle ways.

[Hush]

I really like how he described his idea as Lord of the Rings type epic.

[Jaspertian1105]

It would be cool to see Timm directing a live action superhero movie but i dont think it will ever happen. I dont know why everybody already rejects Millars script, i read red son the other day and he pretty much nails it, its taken to extremes with all the mind controlling regime that superman creates, but beyond that i saw superman in that story and if can accomplish something like that i would be really worth watching. But if the director is michael bay just burn the whole thing.

[Jochimus]

I really love how Timm is completely unafraid to make fun people of Joel Schumacher and Jon Peters in subtle ways.

Subtle, indeed...

http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/tnba/episodes/19legendsdarkknight/30.jpg
"Hey! Who's talking about Batman? I love Batman. All those muscles, the tight rubber armor and that flashy car. I heard it can drive up walls."

[Compi716]

I'm willing to at least give Millar a shot at pitching his idea. Red Son is one of my all-time favorite Superman stories, and I'm confident he can create something truly extraordinary.

[Thot]

The first step is to get Jim Caviezel to star as Superman. The rest will flow.

[MAN O STEEL]

The first step is to get Jim Caviezel to star as Superman. The rest will flow.


The first step is for you to go away. Caviezel looks like Gilligan from Gilligans island. He's NOT SUperman.





Steve

[SuperDaniel]

^lol

[Dotten]

I absolutely loved Transformers, it transformed me into an 8-year old. I have a pretty big horizon when it comes to movies (love Bergman, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Eastwood etc), but I am also capable of loving the more popcorn-type movies like Transformers and Independence Day. I'm not so narrow-minded.

But Bay for a Superman-movie? I fail to see that happening, it would be wrong. I think. We need James Cameron or someone else :)

[SuperDaniel]

James Cameron almost destroyed Spider-man...So i'm not so sure about him.

[X Knight]

James Cameron almost destroyed Spider-man...So i'm not so sure about him.

Spidey and MJ ******* on the Brookly Bridge!!! :wow:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Spidey and MJ ******* on the Brookly Bridge!!! :wow:Thats what I always bring up when talking about his aborted Spider-Man screenplay. I love him as a director but that screenplay had nothing to do with Spider-Man. Hopefully that was just the first very crappy draft.

[LastSunrise1981]

I still believe they should use Routh as Superman. It would be kind of messed up for them just to toss him aside.

[I Am The Knight]

Thats what I always bring up when talking about his aborted Spider-Man screenplay. I love him as a director but that screenplay had nothing to do with Spider-Man. Hopefully that was just the first very crappy draft.

His first act was pretty much what ended up in the screen in SM1, though.

[dark_b]

Thats what I always bring up when talking about his aborted Spider-Man screenplay. I love him as a director but that screenplay had nothing to do with Spider-Man. Hopefully that was just the first very crappy draft.
but this was just maybe an idea :hehe:

i will not say that he is wrong for spiderman since he didnt do a full 2 hour spiderman movie. a lot of times script changes happen. for the better.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Of course! If you're gonna begin a franchise anew, you obviously get everyone involved in the last one...:whatever:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

His first act was pretty much what ended up in the screen in SM1, though.SM1 was just a big mesh mash of alot of Spider-Man scripts I think. I read a good chuck of it and I'm not saying that all the ideas blow as I loved Spider-Man, but I don't care for the bondage bridge sex between Pete and MJ.:cwink: And other horrible ideas that I'm not going to get into now because this is a Superman forum.

Anywho, I think that the Singer fans don't undertand the question on the front page and I don't understand why Singer's name is even in the poll? It's obvious that he isn't coming back. It's ridiculous to believe that he would want to reboot Superman, he's said time and time again that he enjoyed SR.

Being involved in a reboot would be admiting failure, I doubt he would do that.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm willing to at least give Millar a shot at pitching his idea. Red Son is one of my all-time favorite Superman stories, and I'm confident he can create something truly extraordinary.

I'm willing to give a shot. The man does have a genuine love for Superman and maybe his ideas look better on script and paper than what he has said to the public.

[I Am The Knight]

SM1 was just a big mesh mash of alot of Spider-Man scripts I think.

That makes sense, since David Koepp scripted SM1 :hehe:

It seems like Koepp's first draft used Cameron's scriptment as a launching pad, with subsequent rewrites by Rosenberg and Sargent.

[Spade]

If you ask me, the rewrite stages of a script is where the real magic begins. Look at Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2, Iron Man, or even The Dark Knight...there was more than one input. When the talent thins, things start to turn sour. Even when it's just one concept, it has to be a good one to work; Cameron's script, by itself, was not good. There were certainly ideas that were worthwhile, but as a whole it was not a good Spider-Man story.

Even if they use Millar's script and it doesn't look too hot, I have faith that the rewrite process can iron things out. Multiple drafts help iron out the wrinkles and form stories that people remember. For all we know, Millar's Ultimate Superman could end up having All-Star or modern Action Comics influences when we finally see it...all assuming, of course, that it's not a rejected pitch.

[Timstuff]

Subtle, indeed...

http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/tnba/episodes/19legendsdarkknight/30.jpg
"Hey! Who's talking about Batman? I love Batman. All those muscles, the tight rubber armor and that flashy car. I heard it can drive up walls."

Look at the sign above his head. Also, the other kids in that episode actually refer to him as "Joel." LOL! :D

[Scarecrow_King]

i think millar's script(s) is/are worth at least serious consideration. most people i've heard are either completely for or completely against his scripts. most people (myself included, until now) don't consider rewrites. i think millar could have something worth keeping, but I hope that WB would have the right people there to rewrite and modify his ideas. preferrably a comic book person, but their track record on that isn't too great...

[Spade]

It was a boy. He was just especially...effeminate.

By the way, I just saw the episode in question. The reference to Schumacher is undeniable. The sign, the dialogue in that part, and that he's named Joel is as strong a jab as any. That, and the fact that the kids outright dismiss Joel's rantings.

[Scarecrow_King]

i think that the Metropolis in the new movie should be contrasted to the Gotham in Nolan's universe. It should be the bright, technologicaly advanced city that in most ways is superior to Gotham. the only corruption i would want to see is the corporate corruption due to luthor.

[Spade]

I'm alright with a seedy Metropolis, but my absolute preference would be a truly global Superman story. I've always had a hard time believing Superman has as hard a time dealing with Metropolis. I'd like to see how Clark wants to improve humanity, not just Metropolis. Maybe they can use it as the battleground between Clark and Luthor, but besides that I wanna see an epic Superman tale that's outside the city limits for the most part.

[I Am The Knight]

I think Superman should go "global" by the end of the movie, having a conference and what-not about it. At the end of the movie, Superman should be stablished as Earth's greatest hero. But The first movie should take place mostly in Metropolis, IMO.

[I Am The Knight]

Um, were you banned?

[Scarecrow_King]

i really think this reboot needs to start with an origin story. and i'm not just saying how he was stuck in a rocket and sent to earth. i mean a CHARACTER origin. how he became the hero that he is. how the man became the superman.

[Winking Samurai]

i really think this reboot needs to start with an origin story. and i'm not just saying how he was stuck in a rocket and sent to earth. i mean a CHARACTER origin. how he became the hero that he is. how the man became the superman.

This. A million times this. We may all know how Superman came to this planet, but we need a little more context as to why he flies around saving people, other than "The Kents are an altruistic bunch." This was one thing I think Birthright really nailed. It expanded on exactly why he wanted to save people, and how he went about accomplishing that.

[Timstuff]

This. A million times this. We may all know how Superman came to this planet, but we need a little more context as to why he flies around saving people, other than "The Kents are an altruistic bunch." This was one thing I think Birthright really nailed. It expanded on exactly why he wanted to save people, and how he went about accomplishing that.

This generation's young people didn't watch Superman: The Movie. I think that a lot of anti-origin die hards either don't realise this, or they don't think it matters. People need to part their lips from Donner's butt cheeks and accept that it's time for a new origin film.

[Ultimate_Superman]

This generation's young people didn't watch Superman: The Movie. I think that a lot of anti-origin die hards either don't realise this, or they don't think it matters. People need to part their lips from Donner's butt cheeks and accept that it's time for a new origin film.
Agreed

[Jokers_Wild]

This generation's young people didn't watch Superman: The Movie. I think that a lot of anti-origin die hards either don't realise this, or they don't think it matters. People need to part their lips from Donner's butt cheeks and accept that it's time for a new origin film.

I agree as well. It's just a shame that they didn't do it in 2006. It would've been great to follow the lead of Batman Begins, by showing the hero from the start, and how he came to be...but make sure to mix in enough action to keep everyone happy.

[TheBatman1979]

This generation's young people didn't watch Superman: The Movie. I think that a lot of anti-origin die hards either don't realise this, or they don't think it matters. People need to part their lips from Donner's butt cheeks and accept that it's time for a new origin film.

Agreed, now how do we convince the Warner Execs that Bruce Timm, Geoff Johns and Paul Dini need to write this thing?

[Dark Knight]

Now...Millar + Snyder= potentially great

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Snyder already said that he turned down an offer to direct and Millar ideas...are awful.

[Ultimate_Superman]

I would not want Snyder to direct this movie. I hate that slow motion action.

[solidsnake86]

I agree with you timstuff, the only people who care for STM are die hard fans and frankly its because of STM that we got SR which people were so upset with. That movie is both a blessing and a curse for the superman film franchise. It outlined the origin story for other filmmakers to follow but some fans think it can't be topped. I mean people to this day want the exact same costume that Reeve wore for a new superman film. I think its time we move on and start from the beginning.

I also can't believe how many people want to start the film off with superman punching someone. How are we supposed to care for the characters if we don't know anything about them. I agree with symbiote too that we need a character origin. Now if anyone says its superman and people know him my response is that mentality was used with sr and look what happend.

[Dark Knight]

I would not want Snyder to direct this movie. I hate that slow motion action.




Not me...I think Snyder would work wonders if he were to direct a Supes film. I know he declined an offer....but that was before Robinovs statement about wanting to take the character and his enemies in a darker direction.

[RogueDK]

I would not want Snyder to direct this movie. I hate that slow motion action.



I like Snyder but his slo-mo can get a little monotonous for me. I think visually, he could do Superman justice though...

[Superman-Prime]

Snyder already said that he turned down an offer to direct and Millar ideas...are awful.

Finally, someone has to say this. I don't like Millar's idea. Ugh.

[The Guard]

i really think this reboot needs to start with an origin story. and i'm not just saying how he was stuck in a rocket and sent to earth. i mean a CHARACTER origin. how he became the hero that he is. how the man became the superman.

Exactly.

[Rage]

Finally, someone has to say this. I don't like Millar's idea. Ugh.

What is Millar's idea? How do you find a copy of his treatment?

Rage

[bunk]

They've really only scratched the surface with Superman on film. They've all been fairly one dimensional in many respects. When he shows up, the world basically falls in love with him and that's that. I would like to see a wider range of feeling about Superman shown. People being fearful, skeptical, forming cults, starting anti-alien groups. Obviously, he's saving people so most would think he's awesome, but it would make for a more interesting origin story. Also, more of a reaction from the rest of world in regard to the U.S. having a super powered being.

[Rage]

I agree bunk. While most would think that a person flying around saving people would be great...there would be the other side of the coin with all the freaks coming out of the wood work. I'd like to see that too (especially in regard to/surrounding Clark)

Rage

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Yes, everything must be The Dark Knight.:rolleyes:

[[A]]

Hey, why do you guys want an origin story..?

[Scarecrow_King]

well, obviously luthor wouldn't like the presence of superman. and i would love references to Gotham and the batman. nothing major, but maybe just a line of dialogue or something, to tie them into the same movie universe. much like we've been getting in the Marvel movies.

[[A]]

well, obviously luthor wouldn't like the presence of superman. and i would love references to Gotham and the batman. nothing major, but maybe just a line of dialogue or something, to tie them into the same movie universe. much like we've been getting in the Marvel movies.
Like in the last one, when they mention Gotham City..?

[Crook]

Yes, everything must be The Dark Knight.:rolleyes:
To be fair, that's not exclusive to the Batman world. Though it was certainly made most popular there.

[bunk]

I agree bunk. While most would think that a person flying around saving people would be great...there would be the other side of the coin with all the freaks coming out of the wood work. I'd like to see that too (especially in regard to/surrounding Clark)

Rage

I don't mean bands of freaks running wild, just that there would be an incredible range of reactions from people to an alien walking the Earth. How would he deal with the people completely afraid of him for being an alien? Also, seeing something happen outside of Metropolis would be nice.

Yes, everything must be The Dark Knight.:rolleyes:

That seems to be WB's MO.

[Scarecrow_King]

Like in the last one, when they mention Gotham City..?

heh, i must have missed that. i've only seen it a few times. but i meant a mention of Batman, not just Gotham.

[Showtime]

Hey, why do you guys want an origin story..?

I don't.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I really hope WB lets somebody make a Superman movie. Iron Man was a good movie to me (and got good reviews) and was a big hit and it was nothing like TDK, it is it's own film.

I like for different characters to have different voices.

I don't know what type of Superman movie WB is going to allow to be made and I have long since stop looking into those "Dark" comments as I believe Robinov was just saying something. But sometimes I wonder.

I just hope the suits don't get anymore bright ideas. Superman being brought into some somewhat realistic world is what got them into this mess in the first place. They are going to connect it but I hope that doesn't damage the next director vision of Superman, my vision of Superman.

Again I don't get how they are going to connect them too deeply without hurting the worlds of one of the franchises? Loved The Dark Knight but I think that a Superpowered being would be way out of place, hell I can't even imagine ClayFace in his BatWorld, let alone Superman or Metallo or Doomsday or Darkseid or Parasite.

I've said something like this before just thought I'd say it again.

[[A]]

I don't.
Ok, so why do you guys -except for Showtime- want an origin story..? :grin:

[Rage]

I don't mean bands of freaks running wild, just that there would be an incredible range of reactions from people to an alien walking the Earth. How would he deal with the people completely afraid of him for being an alien? Also, seeing something happen outside of Metropolis would be nice.

Either do I. I'm thinking about religious groups calling it a sign of the end of days. Cults devoted to him...maybe a nice shot at scientology ;) Mistrust from a variety of people (like police and government) He'd be very much like Batman at first...having to gain the trust and respect of the people.

All I want is a more realistic take on Superman and less romantic take on it. In that respect BB and TDK did it right. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, I've been driving it for decades :D

Rage

[[A]]

All I want is a more realistic take on Superman and less romantic take on it
I like that..

[Rage]

Ok, so why do you guys -except for Showtime- want an origin story..? :grin:

I think that if you are rebooting the franchise or restarting it... you need to set the ground work and show people who "THIS" Superman is and how he differs from the previous versions. You can do that without it being an origin story, but an origin really lets you set your story in stone and eliminate any confusion with other incarnations of the property in the same and other mediums (like TV or comics)

Rage

[bunk]

Either do I. I'm thinking about religious groups calling it a sign of the end of days. Cults devoted to him...maybe a nice shot at scientology ;) Mistrust from a variety of people (like police and government) He'd be very much like Batman at first...having to gain the trust and respect of the people.

All I want is a more realistic take on Superman and less romantic take on it. In that respect BB and TDK did it right. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon, I've been driving it for decades :D

Rage

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Clark interviewing some Superman obsessed cult leader for a story would make for a really interesting scene.

[[A]]

I think that if you are rebooting the franchise or restarting it... you need to set the ground work and show people who "THIS" Superman is and how he differs from the previous versions. You can do that without it being an origin story, but an origin really lets you set your story in stone and eliminate any confusion with other incarnations of the property in the same and other mediums (like TV or comics)
Yeah but it better be successful.. otherwise, next time they're gonna be doing an origin story again and people will be rolling their eyes..

[Rage]

The last time they did an origin story was in 78... 30 years later isn't soon enough in my opinion. The thing that they need to do different is have a freakin supervillian in this movie. I don't want to see Superman stop crooks and natural disasters.

They should have him fight Brainiac or Zod in the first movie and set up an epic battle with Darkseid for the second and third.

Rage

[Rage]

The last time they did an origin story was in 78... 30 years later isn't soon enough in my opinion. The thing that they need to do different is have a freakin supervillian in this movie. I don't want to see Superman stop crooks and natural disasters.

They should have him fight Brainiac or Zod in the first movie and set up an epic battle with Darkseid for the second and third.

Rage

[[A]]

The last time they did an origin story was in 78... 30 years later isn't soon enough in my opinion. The thing that they need to do different is have a freakin supervillian in this movie. I don't want to see Superman stop crooks and natural disasters.
I know what you mean, but I was talking more about a story everybody knows.. I don't know (or can't remember) how people felt before Batman Begins, if they (we) knew it was gonna be an origin story..

[Rage]

I knew it was an origin movie. And I'm not the most connected nerd on the net... but the name alone suggested that it was an origin movie.

Most people I know that aren't comic geeks knew by the name that it was a new take on Batman... but my friends are pretty Pop-culture-literate and I bombard them with movie info on a daily basis.

Rage

[[A]]

I knew it was an origin movie. And I'm not the most connected nerd on the net... but the name alone suggested that it was an origin movie
Duh to myself. It shows I've spent way too much time here today :grin: I should go now haha

[Anita18]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Clark interviewing some Superman obsessed cult leader for a story would make for a really interesting scene.
I would :lmao: so hard. That moment would be gold.

[zmystico]

I know what you mean, but I was talking more about a story everybody knows.. I don't know (or can't remember) how people felt before Batman Begins, if they (we) knew it was gonna be an origin story..


I knew and was hoping it was a origin story. In Batman 89, we never saw his origin, just Batman as a complete character coming into Gotham City. I LOVED how Nolan made Bruce use resources already available to create Batman, and how he wasn't quite a "finished" Batman. With Superman, you really can't do that, sure there is a learning period of when Clark learns to co-exist (making sure he doesn't forget to put his glasses back on, not changing in too public of a place, etc.) . The Donner version kinda hinted at his origin, but ultimately it was just, he came in a space ship and sent I think like 8-10 years traveling in space with daddy's crystals and Bam...he's saving humans because "they have a great capacity for good." I think I could really get into a Superman film that has him learning to use his powers better, trying to figure out how to co-exist as both clumsy clark and superman. I don't think it should be dark though, Superman is the good-cop compared to Batman's bad-cop.

[Scarecrow_King]

i like the good-cop bad-cop element you put in there. i would like to see that concept toyed with in a Justice League movie.

[hippie_hunter]

Ok, so why do you guys -except for Showtime- want an origin story..? :grin:

Because it would make this film feel like a complete reboot. Plus I'd like to see Krypton as a blend of TAS, Donner, and Silver Age portrayals. I'd like to see Ma and Pa Kent developed more. And I want to see why Lex Luthor hates Superman.

[Lighthouse]

Because it would make this film feel like a complete reboot. Plus I'd like to see Krypton as a blend of TAS, Donner, and Silver Age portrayals. I'd like to see Ma and Pa Kent developed more. And I want to see why Lex Luthor hates Superman.

Also, part of my problem with SR is that the two actors were thrown together, and we were expected to carry all the charisma and events from the Reeve and Kidder to Routh and Bosworth. We never got to see Lois and Superman develop a relationship, and apart from their total lack of chemistry, that made the two of them as a couple so unconvincing.

[solidsnake86]

Not doing a complete restart is going to be the same thing as SR, and if they go that route they should just do a revamped sequel instead of recasting everyone. If they don't want to confuse people (especially with the kid) name it superman begins (not actually just an example) and start from the beginning. I think it would be the easiest thing to do because origin story's write themselves and would not piss off fans because its really hard to screw it up.

[BATZARRO WWD]

I figure since the last movie was light on origin, it wouldn't seem redundant at this point. I'd personally prefer an origin because even though I know it, it helps sell the character and hw he relates to the world. Plus, it definittively separates from any and all other continuities(even though Smallville should be cold turkey by the time the film comes home, and Returns more than five years old).

[solidsnake86]

At this point there hasn't been any news in about 2 weeks since that announcement. This could be good or bad, when do you guys think we'll hear something.

[dark_b]

Yes, everything must be The Dark Knight.:rolleyes:it doesnt need to be.

but maybe a 2 minute scene where they show some people in the city that are a little sceptical. lets not show how people around the world are naive.
i understand that everyone loves superman when he is saving more months. but the first week or month should not be like that.

[I Am The Knight]

At this point there hasn't been any news in about 2 weeks since that announcement. This could be good or bad, when do you guys think we'll hear something.

The article said they would announce their actual plans within a month. So I'm guessing we should hear something 2 weeks from now?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

it doesnt need to be.

but maybe a 2 minute scene where they show some people in the city that are a little sceptical. lets not show how people around the world are naive.
i understand that everyone loves superman when he is saving more months. but the first week or month should not be like that.I could deal with that, it is unrealistic to believe that everybody would just suddenly embrace a Super alien being.

[the GRIN Reaper]

I really hope WB lets somebody make a Superman movie. Iron Man was a good movie to me (and got good reviews) and was a big hit and it was nothing like TDK, it is it's own film.
It's different yes, but similar in that the movie takes place in a gritty recognizable world, with modern world dilemmas and issues. That's how you "Dark Knight" a Superman film. Make the setting of it's time, and relatable. Hurdles the character has to take on that we can on some level relate to as audience members.

That's what I took them meaning by putting these characters in a "dark" setting. Not that the character himself is actually dark, like Batman.

[X Knight]

so....has there been any new updates on the reboot project?

I've been busy losing my sanity in the political threads for the last week.......( and YES, you WILL lose your sanity in the political threads.......the atmosphere there is MUCH more nasty. Heck....it makes the SR fans vs. hater debates here look like a walk in the park.......lol ).

[Xybalba69]

...Donner's 'Superman' movie still rock...and it will be THE #1 Superman movie forever...

...i just want someone to top that one with an action packed movie without romance or the Lois's character around...or that damned kid...

[echostation]

I think showing a brief brief origin again like in 5 mins or something or less then focus on Brainiac somehow coming to Earth where Superman must fight him off, only it turns out that Brainiac is actually an emissary of sorts, like a smaller guard of a much larger threat - Darkseid... and then build the next two films on Darkseid which would be both hugely dark and visually kick ass to see those two fighting although I want Superman to actually come out on top in the end and beat the living **** out of him like in the last episode of JLU...

[Ita-KalEl]

At this point there hasn't been any news in about 2 weeks since that announcement. This could be good or bad, when do you guys think we'll hear something.

I wouldn't be worried about that. You can bet what you want that at WB they will release their release schedule of sh movies (Batman 3 included). For them their sh franchises are a priority again. There'll be a new sh movie in 2010 for sure, so expect some announcement soon.
Reguarding Superman, I don't know if they'll announce a TBA release date or not. It depends by what they have in their hands.
It is sure that they know that this is their last chance to relaunch the character (at least for many years), so if they aren't sure they aren't going to greenlit anything.

The problem is that we know that you can't be sure to greenlit the perfect superman movie...so if someone doesn't risk, there is the possibility of a delay/development hell.
Nevertheless by now I'm quite optimistic.

[Superman-Prime]

Ok, so why do you guys -except for Showtime- want an origin story..? :grin:

The question is, DO we have to see the origin story? Really, we all know what happened in Krypton, how did Kal-El arrive to the earth, develop his powers during his teen time, got a job and then become Superman.

Why can't they do it without the origin story like The Incredible Hulk?

[Cain]

The question is, DO we have to see the origin story? Really, we all know what happened in Krypton, how did Kal-El arrive to the earth, develop his powers during his teen time, got a job and then become Superman.

Why can't they do it without the origin story like The Incredible Hulk?

There are many kids out there today that have no idea who Superman is in this Batman and Spider-Man dominated world so they origin could benefit them. Also if you're going to give them a Superman movie that will define their generation they need an origin to establish that this is a completely different continuity from previous Superman films. The origin has been retold many times in many different ways so it could always be kept fresh. The basic elements are always there but the presentation is never the same so I don't see why the same can't be done on film.

[[A]]

The question is, DO we have to see the origin story? Really, we all know what happened in Krypton, how did Kal-El arrive to the earth, develop his powers during his teen time, got a job and then become Superman.

Why can't they do it without the origin story like The Incredible Hulk?
Good, you got my point :woot: and I agree with you (obviously, if it's my point, then..whatever:whatever: :funny:)

[dark_b]

you can not have a smallville show for 8 seasons and then come here and say that peoepl dont know hes origin.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Eh, I don't care if people know his orgin or not I still want an orgin story.

[Cain]

you can not have a smallville show for 8 seasons and then come here and say that peoepl dont know hes origin.

It altered it so considerably to the point that it's unrecognizable when compared with the comics. It completely reinvented things and in the process borrowed just as much if not more from the Donner films than the comics. Krypton was not a crystaline planet, Jor-El wasn't some memory on a super integalactic harddrive that Clark learned from. You ask any non fan what krypton is like they'll immediately tell you a crystal planet which shows you they have a lot to learn and there is room there to teach them. Since this movie is made for them primarily it's fair to give them something more genuine that will also give them a greater & clearer understanding of why Superman who they all view as an "unrelateable god" is who he is.

Smallville is nowhere near a fair representation of the origin when compared with what could be done if the comics are referenced a lot more closely when it comes to adapting the origin. That plus the audience for a prime time soap opera is way way beneath what the audience for a major budget film ever will be.

People still haven't seen the "real origin" in any of the movies or live action shows and since his kryptonian heritage, Jor-El and growing up on Kent farm are so important to his story it's only right to revisit that and present it in a way that mainstream audiences have yet still to see because they don't read comic books. If you're going to reinvent Superman for a new generation it's only right you give them the full story so that they could invest in the universe. That's why Batman was given an origin movie when he was reintroduced to a new generation and Superman deserves the same.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

...Donner's 'Superman' movie still rock...and it will be THE #1 Superman movie forever...

...i just want someone to top that one with an action packed movie without romance or the Lois's character around...or that damned kid...
So basically, you don't want any kind of character development, no story and even worse a, dare I say it, PLOT.......NOOOOOOOO. All you want to see from the opening credits are a bunch of super punches being thrown with a super villain and a body count. Does that about sum it up?

[Kryptonian Warrior]

Eh, I don't care if people know his orgin or not I still want an orgin story.
Why don't you just go rent Superman: The Movie, and there's your origin story, or just watch said movie right before you go to watch the new movie when it comes out, then you will have a 5 hour Superman movie. How bout that?

[The Sage]

It altered it so considerably to the point that it's unrecognizable when compared with the comics. It completely reinvented things and in the process borrowed just as much if not more from the Donner films than the comics. Krypton was not a crystaline planet, Jor-El wasn't some memory on a super integalactic harddrive that Clark learned from. You ask any non fan what krypton is like they'll immediately tell you a crystal planet which shows you they have a lot to learn and there is room there to teach them. Since this movie is made for them primarily it's fair to give them something more genuine that will also give them a greater & clearer understanding of why Superman who they all view as an "unrelateable god" is who he is.

Smallville is nowhere near a fair representation of the origin when compared with what could be done if the comics are referenced a lot more closely when it comes to adapting the origin. That plus the audience for a prime time soap opera is way way beneath what the audience for a major budget film ever will be.

People still haven't seen the "real origin" in any of the movies or live action shows and since his kryptonian heritage, Jor-El and growing up on Kent farm are so important to his story it's only right to revisit that and present it in a way that mainstream audiences have yet still to see because they don't read comic books. If you're going to reinvent Superman for a new generation it's only right you give them the full story so that they could invest in the universe. That's why Batman was given an origin movie when he was reintroduced to a new generation and Superman deserves the same.

Yeah, I'm starting to lean in this direction as well, and I originally didn't want a straight up origin story.

[Cain]

Why don't you just go rent Superman: The Movie, and there's your origin story, or just watch said movie right before you go to watch the new movie when it comes out, then you will have a 5 hour Superman movie. How bout that?

Gee maybe because in the 31 years since that film was made leaps in technology and evolution in scripting and directing could provide for a more detailed and elaborate representation of the origin. Maybe because the Donner films altered what was in the funny pages very much and there is still room out there to put something more accurate on film.

Maybe because this is a completely new continuity that is supposed to distance itself from the Donner verse which a lot of the general public has clearly moved on from. This is not a knock on STM cause that's one of my favorite movies of all time but seriously though how could some of you guys not get why an origin story will work if they're restarting from scratch.

The mainstream including the new generation of children still don't know who Superman really is the same way they did with Batman before BB and it's time to show them. I've been a Superman fan for a little over 20 years that's the majority of my life yet I have friends my own age who still have no idea who Superman is outside of STM. None whatsoever and it's time to take advantage of the 70 years of comic history and come up with something that could show them that in a modernized way.

[ragdus]

The only trouble is that they need to work REALLY hard not to make the first hour some boring farm boy story. At least with BB there was a lot of personal drama in that hour, even if Batman never made an appearance.

A proper origin should probably take something like 45-60 minutes, but it HAS to written with great care.

The escape from Krypton can be done before the opening credits roll.

[Cain]

The only trouble is that they need to work REALLY hard not to make the first hour some boring farm boy story. At least with BB there was a lot of personal drama in that hour, even if Batman never made an appearance.

A proper origin should probably take something like 45-60 minutes, but it HAS to written with great care.

The escape from Krypton can be done before the opening credits roll.

Honestly if structured properly meaning with good pacing and enough detail to give the audience the full scope the whole krypton/smallville segment won't have to take any more than 40 or so minutes of screen time at the most. Being that TDK just proved that if handled with enough care a superhero film could manage to go past the 2 hour mark and still be engaging and financially successful cause of that there could be plenty of room left over for lots of metropolis and even beyond metropolis goodness.

[The Sage]

You'd probably only need 10 minutes on Krypton, 15 to 20 in Smallville, and the rest in Metropolis and the rest of the world.

[[A]]

You'd probably only need 10 minutes on Krypton, 15 to 20 in Smallville, and the rest in Metropolis and the rest of the world.
Makin' the movie last.. what?

[The Sage]

Makin' the movie last.. what?

Two and a half hours. 30 minutes Krypton and Smallville, the remaining two hours all Superman, Metropolis, and the world.

[dark_b]

in BB you had in the origin part action. sword fight,fist fights and incredible landscapes.
if you can have this in superman origin then ok

[dark_b]

Two and a half hours. 30 minutes Krypton and Smallville, the remaining two hours all Superman, Metropolis, and the world.but then the editing and pacing needs to be incredible and mindblowing. because if not you have a bomb.

[Crook]

Two and a half hours. 30 minutes Krypton and Smallville, the remaining two hours all Superman, Metropolis, and the world.
If you're gonna have a 2.5 hour film, minds as well have Smallville and Krypton have a lot more time than that. Like 40-50.

[[A]]

Two and a half hours. 30 minutes Krypton and Smallville, the remaining two hours all Superman, Metropolis, and the world.
Sounds good enough for me.
in BB you had in the origin part action. sword fight,fist fights and incredible landscapes.
if you can have this in superman origin then ok
Ditto.

[Cain]

in BB you had in the origin part action. sword fight,fist fights and incredible landscapes.
if you can have this in superman origin then ok

Of course you can this is Superman we're talking about here "epic" is part of his description. Plus you could always stay revisiting his origins and further elaborating in subsequent films if you want to. What I'm about to say could be used in a first film and provide plenty of great action and eye candy but if isn't then in a sequel. Imagine a sequel that deals with Braniac where they flashback to krypton for a sec and show the recent re-establishment in the comics of how he shrunk and hijacked the city of Kandor?

You'd have Zod and his army trying to stop his probes you have his probes killing kryptonians left and right and you end it with the city being shrunken taken away by his main ship. All that could be done before the credits too. I'd pay $30 to see that on screen no lie.

[[A]]

You'd have Zod and his army trying to stop his probes you have his probes killing kryptonians left and right and you end it with the city being shrunken taken away by his main ship. All that could be done before the credits too. I'd pay $30 to see that on screen no lie.
Killing people in a Superman movie..?

[Cain]

Killing people in a Superman movie..?

Why not? people get killed in Superman comics. It's not like it's Superman himself doing the killing you know.

[The Sage]

Killing people in a Superman movie..?

Well there is a planet called Krypton that explodes, you know...:oldrazz:

[[A]]

Why not? people get killed in Superman comics. It's not like it's Superman himself doing the killing you know.

Well there is a planet called Krypton that explodes, you know...:oldrazz:

Yeah but we never saw it before. People getting vaporized, maybe..? My memory's having a bad day:o

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Why don't you just go rent Superman: The Movie, and there's your origin story, or just watch said movie right before you go to watch the new movie when it comes out, then you will have a 5 hour Superman movie. How bout that?How about you grow up?

Seriously, that is one rude, for no reason what-so-ever, post. "Superman: The Movie" is not a good movie IMHO and I don't have to watch anything before a see the new Superman movie.

Judging by your name I assume you are a Superman Returns fan, and judging by your response, a crazed one. Glad you are one of the few unintelligent SR fans.

Do me a favor, respond to my posts when you have something of import to say?

[Scarecrow_King]

i think that if they're going to give screen time for krypton and smallville, then they should give it a lot of time. for an origin story, smallville is superman 101. i would definitely devote more time to smallville than krypton. i've said it before, i want to see an origin explaining how the man became the superman. and smallville is the biggest piece of that puzzle by far.

[Cain]

Yeah but we never saw it before. People getting vaporized, maybe..? My memory's having a bad day:o

Remember the fate of Cat Grant's son? among other things. If you want a more recent example though pick up the excellent Braniac arc that's going in on Action Comics right now (issues #866 - #868 so far). You see a kryptonian getting killed on the very first page of that story.

[[A]]

Remember the fate of Cat Grant's son? among other things. If you want a more recent example though pick up the excellent Braniac arc that's going in on Action Comics right now (issues #866 - #868 so far). You see a kryptonian getting killed on the very first page of that story.
I thought we were talking about movies. Nevermind, I gotta go.

[fabman]

Why not keep Superman's origins a bit more mysterious rather than showing you what exactly went down on Krypton? You know, just show that baby explode at the beginning and maybe Clark landing on Earth and then fast-forward years later. Kinda like The Incredible Hulk did, but it should be a lot better executed.

Plus, where's the problem with killing people in a Superman flick? It's the character that should inspire hope, but I don't think everything should be "bright, sweet, candy candy" in a Superman pic. That's the kind of mood that ruined Superman Returns ("retro candy candy"), except that the flick was depressing. I'm kinda thinking of a Robocop kind of atmosphere - except for the explicit content, you know.

[ragdus]

Because it completely glosses over why becoming Superman was an important and poignant decision that he makes in his life?

[fabman]

With "Superman's origins" I mean where he comes from. After the explosion, jump to Clark before he's Superman. You just hold back Krypton's story (you know... planet blown up... baby landed... Kents find him...).

Also, I want a smart Lex Luthor aswell, but that doesn't mean he can't be a crazy mofo aswell or better... BECOME a crazy mofo... :D

There's so much you can do with those characters, which hasn't been done. I really hope Warner Bros will lock a smart director who knows exactly what to do with the material, offering something fresh aswell.

[Crook]

Why not keep Superman's origins a bit more mysterious rather than showing you what exactly went down on Krypton? You know, just show that baby explode at the beginning and maybe Clark landing on Earth and then fast-forward years later. Kinda like The Incredible Hulk did, but it should be a lot better executed.

I'd only support this if, and only if, Krypton is explored later on in a sequel. You can't just blatantly ignore his history like that.

[fabman]

Sure, I'm not talking about completely ignoring his history, but keeping it a bit mysterious to get the plot going at the beginning. If not in a sequel, later in the flick.

Also, I would bring some "alien stuff" in the pic aswell. You know, some kind of Roswell BS (of course more original). There's some crazy stuff going on in Metropolis, I don't think people should take such things for granted.

You know, include elements of the science-fiction genre, aswell. They're trying to revamp Superman. It's gotta be something special then. Something like Chris Nolan did with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but without looking at those flicks as a blueprint. That was Batman, this is Superman. Same studio. OK. Same publisher. OK. Same movie? No.

I wouldn't want a carbon-copy of those films. That would be a lousy thing to do.

[Cain]

Why did they tell us that Batman gets his gadgets from Wayne Enterprises? why did they show us that he put himself through all types of training to prepare for his destiny? we live in a society were subtle cinema is no longer enough. I love things being left to the imagination but I'm old fashioned that way. Modern movie goers on the other hand need investment and a reason to give a damn cause they demand it and they don't read comic books. This is why Bond and Batman were rebooted.

They need to believe in these characters and their universe for these movies to succeed and the franchise to be reestablished as a viable one. If they want to reach a new audience and introduce Superman to them they need to show the history so that everything could be clarified. Like why he chose his disguise and how it's more than just a pair of glasses, why he chooses to save the world and how the relationship with the Kent's led to that, the parrallels between Jor-El and his son and so and so on. You have 70 years of material that has never been properly explored so a smart filmmaker will take advantage in order to sell this world to an audience.

Why did the Iron Man movie work? they showed us Stark's motivations behind choosing to defend the people. Now I know what you're thinking "but Superman is more well known than Iron Man" well just because your girlfriend could recognize the S shield doesn't mean she knows squat about the comics. That falls for anybody in the general public it gives a reason to add a fresh spin to a seemingly familiar tales because they in no way know the full details just the basics and krypton has an extremely rich history that deserves to be done justice on film.

[fabman]

In fact I want them to show Superman's motivations. That's why the "Krypton history" can come a bit later in the pic. I want the to focus on the character.

[Cain]

In fact I want them to show Superman's motivations. That's why the "Krypton history" can come a bit later in the pic. I want the to focus on the character.

You can't explore Superman's motivations without exploring their reasoning in the first place cause then you have no way of connecting with your audience and making them give a crap.

[Cain]

I wouldn't want a carbon-copy of those films. That would be a lousy thing to do.

What indicates that they would be? Superman and Batman are almost like day and night the only thing they'd have in common is that they're both origin flicks based on DC properties. So what Batman is the only DC character worthy of having his origin on film now? I'll say it one more time a great deal of modern audiences don't know or give a crap about Superman. This is a fact and I say this as a fan so you need to sell them this universe and convince them that it's worth following. You only do that when you properly explore it and give them the answers to questions they would otherwise have before they even ask them.

[fabman]

It's not clear at the beginning, but I didn't say that they shouldn't explore that part later in the (same) movie. It would be interesting to see everything coming together later and not seeing how it went down in order at the beginning of the movie.

I didn't say Superman couldn't have an origin, but why would you have things go down like in Batman Begins? Look, sometimes it felt like they used the same script for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and just changed the characters. I mean, in both flicks you have the bad guy "become powerful" (one with a suit, the other one transforming) at the end, just in time for the showdown.

What I was saying is that there's no need to look at other movies while making Superman.

[SatEL]

What indicates that they would be? Superman and Batman are almost like day and night the only thing they'd have in common is that they're both origin flicks based on DC properties. So what Batman is the only DC character worthy of having his origin on film now? I'll say it one more time a great deal of modern audiences don't know or give a crap about Superman. This is a fact and I say this as a fan so you need to sell them this universe and convince them that it's worth following. You only do that when you properly explore it and give them the answers to questions they would otherwise have before they even ask them.
:applaud:applaud:applaudAmen friend amen, I really hope people grasp that concept. A horrible flashback sequence just wont cut it in a fresh reintroduction for the man of steel.

[fabman]

Not talking about a flashback sequence, either. :D

[Cain]

It's not clear at the beginning, but I didn't say that they shouldn't explore that part later in the (same) movie. It would be interesting to see everything coming together later and not seeing how it went down in order at the beginning of the movie.

I didn't say Superman couldn't have an origin, but why would you have things go down like in Batman Begins? Look, sometimes it felt like they used the same script for Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and just changed the characters. I mean, in both flicks you have the bad guy "become powerful" (one with a suit, the other one transforming) at the end, just in time for the showdown.

What I was saying is that there's no need to look at other movies while making Superman.

OK fair enough but then you suggest that they basically follow the unconventional presentation found in BB at the same time lol. Me personally I'd prefer straight forward chronological origin. Only because Superman's story is more magical and inspiring when there is exposition where as with Batman it's the opposite as keeping elements of mystery serves the character better.

In any case if they choose the out of sequence method you suggest I wouldn't oppose either as I fully believe it's a neccessity in a brand new continuity Superman film anyway you slice it. Simply because being a Superman fan now a days is deemed uncool and not trendy so people need to see why it is we love the big blue boyscout and why we relate with such a "geek" in the first place. Only way to do that is to put them on to the history. So as long as it's there it's better than it not being there. But I think in this case the chronological way serves the epic scope better. You start it on krypton you already start it on an epic sci-fi bang and there's nowhere to go from there but up once you're at the metropolis point and past the smallville sequences that bridge the more epic portions.

[fabman]

You know, what I was thinking about. You could also parallel Superman's plot to Jor-El's plot.

I agree on the fact that they need a completely new continuity. They have to make Superman cool again. Bruce Timm did a good job with the animated series, no there's need for a new take in movies.

I mean, Superman is badass. Not in a "dark" kind of way. Not like Batman. But he is badass.

[Crook]

You know, what I was thinking about. You could also parallel Superman's plot to Jor-El's plot.
This is exactly what I had in mind if they wanted to explore Krypton more thoroughly in the sequel. It'd be a great way to bridge Clark with his Kryptonian heritage by mirroring his plight and adventure with that of his biological father.

Godfather 2-ish. :up:

[fabman]

Kinda, yeah... It would be more interesting than a "classic origin" and you'd see the similarities and differences between Jor-El and Kal-El.

[Anita18]

in BB you had in the origin part action. sword fight,fist fights and incredible landscapes.
if you can have this in superman origin then ok
That's what flashback sequences are for. :oldrazz: But of course, it depend on the story they want to focus on. Breaking up the movie chronologically so that the action is more spread out is one reason to use flashbacks, but they should still move the story forward instead of showing it for the sake of showing it.

Why did they tell us that Batman gets his gadgets from Wayne Enterprises? why did they show us that he put himself through all types of training to prepare for his destiny? we live in a society were subtle cinema is no longer enough. I love things being left to the imagination but I'm old fashioned that way. Modern movie goers on the other hand need investment and a reason to give a damn cause they demand it and they don't read comic books. This is why Bond and Batman were rebooted.
There's still plenty of imagination to be used in today's films, but in BB, the entire point of making the film was to show you how Bruce Wayne started. It had never been shown before.

But fans can't just assume that everyone will watch or remember S:TM before seeing a Superman film.

Sure, I'm not talking about completely ignoring his history, but keeping it a bit mysterious to get the plot going at the beginning. If not in a sequel, later in the flick.
Keeping something mysterious sort of implies that there's something sketchy in Superman. That's what noirs and neo-noirs thrive on - if the audience doesn't know something, there must be a reason why. Normally it's to foster a sense of distrust in a character or situation.

I think it's better to get the entire origin out of the way and have a story involving his early years, since his origin would have a direct effect on that. As time passes, his origin will still be a part of who he is, but it will reflect less on specific events and more on the overall lessons from his youth. Like, when I was younger I used to remember specific instances of my parents telling me to do/not do things, but now I don't remember them telling me. I just do it, because I've retained the lessons into my innate value system.

[Cain]

There's still plenty of imagination to be used in today's films, but in BB, the entire point of making the film was to show you how Bruce Wayne started. It had never been shown before.

Yeah that may have been what was said in retrospect. WB's bottom line was ressurecting their injured cash cow though. They knew what Sony was doing with Spider-Man and commisioned a Batman movie that will tell whoever Batman's origin and be the same way. Either by setting it in the future with Batman Beyond or Miller and Aronofsky's Year One.

Sony beat them to the punch cause WB was too slow. The rest of Hollywood realized it's something that audiences embraced since Spider-Man was instrumental in reviving that formula and was a massive hit. It was the return of the Superman: The Movie formula.

Me personally I hate origin movies but then the thing is I could recite 20 years worth of DC continuity based off memory alone. There is no way my cousin or friends could do the same. I consider that and that's why ironically I'm for origin films like the rest of you guys that also are for that. Cause at the same time when it comes to the general public well it benefits them.

It makes them understand these characters and their motivations without them having to look through a jumbled mess of comic continuity. You have to be sympathetic towards them too if you want more superhero movies cause their pockets are the bottom line.

[I Am The Knight]

You know, what I was thinking about. You could also parallel Superman's plot to Jor-El's plot.

They did something similar in SR, but in a father/son legacy sort of way with Jason White.

[Spade]

The key thing to remember is that people like Jor-El and Superman, whereas Jason...

[fabman]

They did something similar in SR, but in a father/son legacy sort of way with Jason White.

It's not like Superman and Jason had anything in common, or like someone would care about that kid.

[Showtime]

That's what flashback sequences are for. :oldrazz: But of course, it depend on the story they want to focus on. Breaking up the movie chronologically so that the action is more spread out is one reason to use flashbacks, but they should still move the story forward instead of showing it for the sake of showing it.


I'm not a big fan of flashback sequences, not that they haven't been used brilliantly at times, but it is basically a "writer's crutch".

[solidsnake86]

I think showing clarks origin and not going into the full blown krypton origin is best if they want get the movie going, than through flashbacks they can show what happend on krypton. It doesn't have to be linear at the end of the day.

I also agree with some posters here in that no one really knows his origin besides that he comes from another planet. And it has to be redone if you want the audience back, if they don't than they shouldve just done a sequel to SR.

As much as people like to say smallville (tv show) is what people know as the origin, all i can say is how many people have been actually watching that show for 8 seasons besides fans.

[dark_b]

to many times people mention the sequel.
stop it.....please stop it( not really hehehe)

this movie needs to delvier on every level. there is no sequel. there is only one movie. and this one needs to kick ass .after that we can think about a sequel. so no more holding back for action. and in NOOOOO way holding back for the origin.

NO MORE PLANS FOR SEQUELS. this new movie needs to have it all.

[Billy Batson]

"Superman: The Movie" is not a good movie IMHO


:shock :huh:

[I Am The Knight]

It's not like Superman and Jason had anything in common, or like someone would care about that kid.

Jason was clearly a mirror image of Superman growing up :huh:

:shock :huh:

Agreed :huh:

[fabman]

Jason was unimportant.

[solidsnake86]

LOL, I'm gonna have to agree with I see spidey, maybe its because I never watched the film when i was younger and when i did watch it I thought it was pretty bad especially when comparing it to tim burtons batman. For me the movie just came off as cheesy. I think it can be top'd very easily.

[[A]]

LOL, I'm gonna have to agree with I see spidey, maybe its because I never watched the film when i was younger and when i did watch it I thought it was pretty bad especially when comparing it to tim burtons batman.
:wow: !!!

[fabman]

I like Superman: The Movie. Cheesy? Maybe. But it's a classic film. But that was 1978, we're in the 2000's now.

[I Am The Knight]

Jason was unimportant.

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

[solidsnake86]

I appreciate the movie for what it was and the year it was made, but i think the mentality that it will never be dethroned is how we will never be able to move superman forward. 30 years is a long time and a lot has changed in the comic book world that I would like to see, especially different takes on the origin. STM laid the ground work for all origin stories to follow but I think we are doing a disservice to ourselves if we think that is the best their every will be.

[dark_b]

I appreciate the movie for what it was and the year it was made, but i think the mentality that it will never be dethroned is how we will never be able to move superman forward. 30 years is a long time and a lot has changed in the comic book world that I would like to see, especially different takes on the origin. STM laid the ground work for all origin stories to follow but I think we are doing a disservice to ourselves if we think that is the best their every will be. i think the only reason why S:TM is so BIG in peoples mind is because the sequels were pretty bad. then they waited so many years and voila.
belive me if this new superman movie is GOOD and i mean good for fans then it can bomb more then speed racer and the fans will say donner who?

[fabman]

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Excuse me, do I have to like Jason? No. So what? :whatever:

I appreciate the movie for what it was and the year it was made, but i think the mentality that it will never be dethroned is how we will never be able to move superman forward. 30 years is a long time and a lot has changed in the comic book world that I would like to see, especially different takes on the origin. STM laid the ground work for all origin stories to follow but I think we are doing a disservice to ourselves if we think that is the best their every will be.

Exactly. There's so much you can do with Superman. Donner's film is a classic. I love it since I was a kid, but it's not like they can't top it.

[I Am The Knight]

Excuse me, do I have to like Jason? No. So what? :whatever:

Who said you had to like him? I don't care wheter you hated the kid or wheter you thought he was the best thing since slice bread. I'm laughing at your post because apparently, since you didn't like Jason, you thought he was an unimportant character. missed the obvious references to Superman growing up on Earth (Which was what I was arguing in the first place, not your opinion on the kid himself) and missed the entire point of Superman's journey to Krypton. Try some reading comprehension. It helps when dealing with text based communication.

[solidsnake86]

Even donner himself improved upon his work by teaming with Geoff Johns. Perfect example was by turning zod, non and ursa into compelling villains. He didn't sit their and say, "I created perfection, nothing needs to be changed".

[the GRIN Reaper]

Why did they tell us that Batman gets his gadgets from Wayne Enterprises? why did they show us that he put himself through all types of training to prepare for his destiny? we live in a society were subtle cinema is no longer enough.
The above has nothing to do with contradicting "subtle cinema" ... subtle filming techniques has nothing to do with what you're describing. The point of the story was to show that evolution of the character. There was a pressing interest in seeing the developmental story of the character and how he mounts his resources before developing into the legend of The Batman. It's the man behind the myth. It's interesting. Has nothing to do with subtle cinema not being around or anything like that, because subtle film does exist. And subtle film isn't presented in the story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. That stuff is epic, it is meant to have an impact. And it has nothing to do with being a less intelligent story. It makes the character 3 dimensional.

[[A]]

About the subtle thing.. they didn't showed us Dent's funeral yet we all knew he was dead. Well, half of us :woot:

[the GRIN Reaper]

About the subtle thing.. they didn't showed us Dent's funeral yet we all knew he was dead. Well, half of us :woot:
There was alot of subtelty and nuance to the Christopher Nolan Bat-films.

[[A]]

There was alot of subtelty and nuance to the Christopher Nolan Bat-films.
Yeah, I'm with you. Plus, I like the word nuance.

[BATZARRO WWD]

Why not keep Superman's origins a bit more mysterious rather than showing you what exactly went down on Krypton? You know, just show that baby explode at the beginning and maybe Clark landing on Earth and then fast-forward years later. Kinda like The Incredible Hulk did, but it should be a lot better executed.


And I would agree with you on that one. In essence, Superman's origin is something he himself must learn. So, if you show it at the beggining, have him grow up at smallville, THEN learn it, that's one thing you can do.But that might be a bit redundant. But if he grows up first, then learns it along with the audience(yeah, they already know), well, that might make it more interesting and help the audience invest emotionally on the character.

I imagine Clark learning who he is really to be a highly emmotional moment.

[Spade]

I don't think we're going to see the same problem they had in The Incredible Hulk here. There, the script was originally supposed to be a direct sequel. It was changed into a reboot well after they had decided on sets, so it still had a sequel feel to it. Superman Returns' negatives had to do with things that Singer added into the Superman mythos. Take them away, and even without an origin it should be pretty clear that this isn't a sequel.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Yeah, I'm with you. Plus, I like the word nuance.
People who critisize BATMAN BEGINS for not being "subtle" just don't flat get it. The movie was supposed to have impact. It was supposed to be epic in scale, and in dialogue. It was ideal heavy movie. As only a beginning Batman movie should be. He's edging in stone his life's vocation of beating criminals at every turn if they ever attempt to harm people in his city.

The cool thing about Nolan, was he took that subtelty and applied it to the look of the film, where as the story and dialogue were of epic and idealistic proportions.

And then you have Burton's film who lack NO SUBTELTY in visuals, but it's meager story and dialogue I guess can be praised at least for being subtle ...

:hoboj:

[Spade]

Burton's films were completely obvious, at least as far as the plot went. The stories were predictable from the second if not the first act. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had impact because the story built up into big moments, not because Nolan tried to force them in. When I think of obviously forced impact I think of Michael Bay, not Christopher Nolan.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Burton's films were completely obvious, at least as far as the plot went. The stories were predictable from the second if not the first act. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had impact because the story built up into big moments, not because Nolan tried to force them in. When I think of obviously forced impact I think of Michael Bay, not Christopher Nolan.
Exactly, cheers.

[Cain]

The above has nothing to do with contradicting "subtle cinema" ... subtle filming techniques has nothing to do with what you're describing. The point of the story was to show that evolution of the character. There was a pressing interest in seeing the developmental story of the character and how he mounts his resources before developing into the legend of The Batman. It's the man behind the myth. It's interesting. Has nothing to do with subtle cinema not being around or anything like that, because subtle film does exist. And subtle film isn't presented in the story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. That stuff is epic, it is meant to have an impact. And it has nothing to do with being a less intelligent story. It makes the character 3 dimensional.

Well my friend it's fairly clear that you didn't get where my post was coming from and misinterpreted what I was saying. So I'll elaborate for you. In this case since you didn't quote the rest I'm talking about how the general public's only perception of Batman on film was the old WB movies from the late 80's and 90's.

Back then it was like ok you could assume Batman travelled abroad cause you see all types of artifacts from different countries in his home including samurai armor, you could deduce he has weapons training cause he has weapons, you could assume he's scientifically intelligent cause you see him repair his tech and cracked chemical poison codes.

You could assume he's athletic and trained in hand to hand combat because you see him excersise and practice hand to hand combat on opponents.

But none of it is said first hand to us they're just little subtle hints sprinkled throughout the films that you either pick up or don't pick up on. Those movies were hits and fairly well received by the mainstream but you never saw them asking "hey I wonder how Batman got this or that?" they didn't care they settled for what they were presented with it was more about escapism.

That's what I mean back in the 80's and 70's it was easier to give people movies that they could reinterpret many different ways. Lots of films from those decades leave a lot to the imagination in comparison to film's today especially when it comes to action/adventure franchises like the Bond series or Batman. Not saying there aren't subtleties in modern comic films but they do a hell of a lot more spelling out than past comic book films that's for damn sure.

Doesn't make one style superior to the other it's a preferential thing but the preference is towards more now a days. Filmgoers are more sophisticated in this post Spider-Man superhero movie age it's a reflection of the times. They expect more now and they want to know the hows and why's. This is a big reason why BB resonated so much with the mainstream because it took advantage of the ressurection of the STM formula and gave audiences the type of superhero film they craved.

One that introduced them to the world and laid out a lot of groundwork. It was made to serve as an origin not just for Batman but for his world as well. Previous comic movies from decade's past weren't even made with sequels in mind save for Superman and just made to purely entertain and not go any further than that. Now they put even more thought behind them cause today's audience craves that since that's what fits their sensibilities.

As far as Bond goes nobody in the general public ever asked "why is Bond so emotionally distant?", "why doesn't he trust women?" and other questions that Casino Royale finally answered. CR was made in an era where audiences were more into detailed oriented backstories and as such it was a hit cause of that. This is what I mean, the previous Bond films were all a whole lot more subtle in answering those questions if you ever had them. If you paid attention close you'd find hints but nothing is ever explicitly said.

[Cain]

Burton's films were completely obvious, at least as far as the plot went. The stories were predictable from the second if not the first act. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had impact because the story built up into big moments, not because Nolan tried to force them in. When I think of obviously forced impact I think of Michael Bay, not Christopher Nolan.

Burton in his early career used visuals to tell stories he was not a plot guy. He started getting more into details with Ed Wood. This is why to this day so many misinterpret both his Batman movies and his other earlier movies.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Exactly.

And "assuming" isn't near as a fun cinematic experience as seeing the actual development in the story.

I thought you were being one of those BEGINS / Nolan hater clowns who say it is rudementary and remedial that Nolan "spells things out for you" ... good movies tell you what you're supposed to know, and not assume.

That's all.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Burton uses visuals to tell stories he's not a plot guy this is why to this day so many misinterpret both his Batman movies.
Then maybe he should stick to pure visual enhanced mediums. Movies go far beyond just visuals. That's why his films are generally lacking in something. And maybe why his best movie is an animation. And even then, this is by far the biggest excuse for Burton I can find. Almost an excuse to validate his movies and make them better than what they actually are. Because it's a subjective thing to measure as opposed to strong dialogue and plot. He doesn't allow visuals to describe things for him, but even then what he's saying is of little importance and meager, Ally McBeal skinny in story and emotional investment.

[Kryptonian Warrior]

How about you grow up?

Seriously, that is one rude, for no reason what-so-ever, post. "Superman: The Movie" is not a good movie IMHO and I don't have to watch anything before a see the new Superman movie.

Judging by your name I assume you are a Superman Returns fan, and judging by your response, a crazed one. Glad you are one of the few unintelligent SR fans.

Do me a favor, respond to my posts when you have something of import to say?
What's with the hostility? The post was NOT rude in no way, shape or form. IT WAS JUST A SUGGESTION!!! Do me a favor.....(1) Learn proper grammar before responding, because your last sentence should end with an exclamation point. Yes I am a SR fan, and you have perceived me as a "crazed" individual because of one post? Seems like you have some growing up to do yourself, buddy. It's okay though, I forgive you. :woot:

[Crook]

Whether it was ill-intentioned or not, it's still pretty stupid to suggest watching a completely different movie in order to fulfill a want/satisfaction needed in a reboot.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Whether it was ill-intentioned or not, it's still pretty stupid to suggest watching a completely different movie in order to fulfill a want/satisfaction needed in a reboot.
This franchise needs a conmtemporay re-boot more than anything. I've been saying this now for 3-4 years. I'm pretty sure we agree. STM doesn't impact people younger than the age of early to mid 30's as it once did. It's clearly outdated in more ways than just the special effects.

[Cain]

Then maybe he should stick to pure visual enhanced mediums. Movies go far beyond just visuals. That's why his films are generally lacking in something.

Sorry to be insulting but you sound foolish my dude. Film IS a visual medium. It was about visuals before it ever had sound. His film's aren't lacking but they're not for everybody. See that I understand so I don't go off insulting people who don't get them. At the same time though me I understand where he comes from cause the types of films he gravitated towards german experssionism, horror and silent films well I love and understand those subgenres too.

So I get why he uses his environments, score and themes to move the film forward as opposed to a conventional story structure. His style is a product of his influences, people love to insult him for expressing himself artistically in the only way he knows how which is ironic but I understand why cause not everybody would get it.

maybe why his best movie is an animation. And even then, this is by far the biggest excuse for Burton I can find. Almost an excuse to validate his movies and make them better than what they actually are.

Amazing how subjective opinion is when I think his best (Big Fish) is not even animated and you do. Nobody makes excuses for Burton they just tell it like it is when it comes to the guy. You either dig it or don't it's your right but you make it seem like there's no reason why they guy is rightfully a highly respected and valuable member of his field.

He doesn't allow visuals to describe things for him

Yes he does, that's his schtick. That's where things like Batman standing infront of a giant sign that says AXIS on it and Catwoman's costume being made of stitched up patches comes from.

[Cain]

I thought you were being one of those BEGINS / Nolan hater clowns who say it is rudementary and remedial that Nolan "spells things out for you" ...

Well sir maybe it's not safe to presume everybody who has an SHH account is someone that pick's sides. I don't waste my time with these so called fan wars. I'm a regular on the Batman board 90% of my post count comes from there. Anybody that knows me from there knows that my favorite Batman film is one of Nolan's even though I've been following Burton's career since 1988.

[Lobo]

I See Spidey and RouthISSuperman play nice ;)

[the GRIN Reaper]

Sorry to be insulting but you sound foolish my dude. Film IS a visual medium.
It is a visual medium, but that's not all it is.

It was about visuals before it ever had sound.
I didn't know silent films were still being made, Cain.

His film's aren't lacking but they're not for everybody.
Obviously they might be if they're not for everyone. And everyone can't get a unified reaction out of them as other pure great films do.

See that I understand so I don't go off insulting people who don't get them.
Did I insult you? You're the one calling me foolish and what not ...

At the same time though me I understand where he comes from cause the types of films he gravitated towards german experssionism, horror and silent films well I love and understand those subgenres too.
Alot of people do ... that still isn't an excuse for the fact he's terrible with plot, character development, emotion, etc.

So I get why he uses his environments, score and themes to move the film forward as opposed to a conventional story structure. His style is a product of his influences, people love to insult him for expressing himself artistically in the only way he knows how which is ironic but I understand why cause not everybody would get it.
It's not hard to understand. However he struggles mightily with the tools that are required for great story telling. And instead of improving said tools, he lays in his comfort zone.

Amazing how subjective opinion is when I think his best (Big Fish) is not even animated and you do.
I didn't say "Big Fish" was animated. I thought it was pretty obvious his best film was "Nightmare Before Christmas" ... afterall it's what Burton is best at. Just doing him, drowning in self pity, and using a film to express himself as opposed to tell a story or try to relate to something else, etc. It's pure Burton. Every thing that gets quirky Burton off is in there, its in his bread basket. He isn't forced to change things up and do something different. Damn near everything he does is molded to fit "Burton", instead of him finding a way to effectively sell the story on all levels to the audience.

He seems like a weak self pittying individual, as well as an artist. He never really pushes himself. But afterall, that is my opinion.

no reason why they guy is rightfully a highly respected and valuable member of his field.
Sure I can, cause its my opinion.



Yes he does, that's his schtick. That's where things like Batman standing infront of a giant sign that says AXIS on it and Catwoman's costume being made of stitched up patches comes from.
That was a typeo.

[Cain]

FYI breaking up responses only works if you actually read the response before breaking it up. For one thing what does silent films no longer being made have to do with them being a huge influence on Tim Burton? and I also never said in that post that nobody has a right to their opinion I said the opposite and more than once at that.

[The Sage]

So yeah, about this guy name Superman that's being reintroduced...

[the GRIN Reaper]

FYI breaking up responses only works if you actually read the response before breaking it up.
LOL, ok civilized guy ...

[Cain]

LOL, ok civilized guy ...

It's one of the many things I've learned from Superman :woot:

[[A]]

So yeah, about this guy name Superman that's being reintroduced...
Yeah. I believe he wears blue tights.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Yeah. I believe he wears blue tights.
But apparently he has to wear red undies outside of his pants and the symbol can't have any type of creative liscense to it ... otherwise it isn't "faithful" and it isn't "Superman". Ahhh, gotta love hardcore comic fans.

[[A]]

But apparently he has to wear red undies outside of his pants and the symbol can't have any type of creative liscense to it ... otherwise it isn't "faithful" and it isn't "Superman". Ahhh, gotta love hardcore comic fans.
I thought it spelt Sooperman. My bad.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Yeah. I believe he wears blue tights.
Because something like this CLEARLY isn't Superman

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/2152/sm2nc7.jpg


It's obviously the Silver Surfer ...


BTW, not directed at you, bro ...

Just some inside ribbing.

[[A]]

BTW, not directed at you, bro ...
Ok :woot: You can always get that impression if someone quotes you :whatever:

I like these.. specially the one on the right, with the smaller S

[Anita18]

People who critisize BATMAN BEGINS for not being "subtle" just don't flat get it. The movie was supposed to have impact. It was supposed to be epic in scale, and in dialogue. It was ideal heavy movie. As only a beginning Batman movie should be. He's edging in stone his life's vocation of beating criminals at every turn if they ever attempt to harm people in his city.

The cool thing about Nolan, was he took that subtelty and applied it to the look of the film, where as the story and dialogue were of epic and idealistic proportions.
I find TDK more visually interesting, due to the contrast between the production design and the story.

And I love BB with all of my heart, but even I thought they explained the concept of fear 10 times too many. :oldrazz:

Yes he does, that's his schtick. That's where things like Batman standing infront of a giant sign that says AXIS on it and Catwoman's costume being made of stitched up patches comes from.
Burton's films may not be my thing (although I did love Big Fish and Nightmare Before Christmas), but there's no denying he's got a visual style that's all him, and he refuses to pander to anything else. And it's not that his movies fail to tell a story - they do, but IMO, you have to emphasize either story or visuals, not both at the same time. That would just be overkill, since the audience would be too busy looking at your visuals to pay attention to story.

Anyhow, the suit posted just above looks pretty cool. No need for red undies, IMO, but you do need to break up the color on the suit so it doesn't look like he's wearing onesies. :funny:

[DavidTyler]

Because something like this CLEARLY isn't Superman

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/2152/sm2nc7.jpg


It's obviously the Silver Surfer ...


BTW, not directed at you, bro ...

Just some inside ribbing.


This looks like the design from a particular Superman elseworlds. I have it somewhere, I just don't remember all that much about it. It's really close to it.

[the GRIN Reaper]

I find TDK more visually interesting, due to the contrast between the production design and the story.
So do I ...

And I love BB with all of my heart, but even I thought they explained the concept of fear 10 times too many. :oldrazz:
People act as if that is the only theme of the movie. On the surface it connected all the characters. That is probably the main theme of the entire mythos, though. Yes it was repeated alot in dialogue, but people act as if that's the only theme of the movie. There is subtle ones as well that aren't as pronounced in dialogue.

[El Payaso]

People who critisize BATMAN BEGINS for not being "subtle" just don't flat get it. The movie was supposed to have impact. It was supposed to be epic in scale, and in dialogue. It was ideal heavy movie. As only a beginning Batman movie should be. He's edging in stone his life's vocation of beating criminals at every turn if they ever attempt to harm people in his city.

Epic is cool.

Repetitive and spoonfeeding is lame.

TDK was much more epic but its dialogues were less over-explicit and repetitive.

The cool thing about Nolan, was he took that subtelty and applied it to the look of the film, where as the story and dialogue were of epic and idealistic proportions.

Saying "fear" or "legend" 40 times is not epic. It's just repetitive. Like trying to achieve epic through repetition more than through meaningfulness.

And then you have Burton's film who lack NO SUBTELTY in visuals, but it's meager story and dialogue I guess can be praised at least for being subtle ...

He can be praised for making good Batman films. His bat-movies were nothing subtle visually speaking but he never felt he had to spoonfeed things or forceps some hollow "with great power comes great responsibility" type of lines.



Burton's films were completely obvious, at least as far as the plot went. The stories were predictable from the second if not the first act.

Yeah, back in 1989 everybody predicted Joker was the Waynes' killer. And from the first Nicholson's scene they knew the Joker died at the end.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight had impact because the story built up into big moments, not because Nolan tried to force them in.

I agree.

But Burton also achieved pretty big moments too.

When I think of obviously forced impact I think of Michael Bay, not Christopher Nolan.

:up:

[Excel]

I have finished the 1st act of my script; Ill post it in a bit...

[Anita18]

People act as if that is the only theme of the movie. On the surface it connected all the characters. That is probably the main theme of the entire mythos, though. Yes it was repeated alot in dialogue, but people act as if that's the only theme of the movie. There is subtle ones as well that aren't as pronounced in dialogue.
Since it's repeated so much, that's the one theme that's the most obvious. Even I have a hard time getting beyond that one to go deeper. People assume that since this one theme was so clear, there really aren't any others because why aren't they as clear?

In TDK, the most prominent theme is chaos vs. order but it's only explicitly mentioned in dialogue when the Joker talks to Batman and Harvey Dent, respectively. Other themes are then free to have their limelight in the film, and all of them affect the plot and characters in their own way. I just have much more fun picking out the themes in TDK than BB.

And as for Superman, there are many ways to go about a Superman story, so which theme(s) would you guys like emphasized?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

so which theme(s) would you guys like emphasized?I've thought about it and haven't been able to come up with any ideas yet.

[Anita18]

I've thought about it and haven't been able to come up with any ideas yet.
Hmm, I'm quite interested in what kinds of ideas people have about this, so I'll make a new thread. :yay:

[Spade]

Yeah, back in 1989 everybody predicted Joker was the Waynes' killer. And from the first Nicholson's scene they knew the Joker died at the end.

I didn't say completely predictable, as it had its fair share of surprises. But the basic elements of the story were fairly apparent. I was led to my own conclusions watching Begins. In Burton's Batman, I felt like the answers that weren't apparent were handed to the viewer through moments of outright shock, like Napier killing Wayne's parents or the Joker dying. It filled in the gaps in the narrative that I didn't guess with concrete ideas as opposed to Begins' approach of clues and hidden meaning culminating in the various revelations throughout (hopefully that doesn't sound pretentious...).

You do bring up a good point about it being repetitive, though. The movie was practically obsessed with its own theme. Plus, it tended to make leaps in logic, like how Alfred plays along with Bruce's crazy idea of enforcing Gotham in a bat suit or how Bruce hardly validates leaving Ra's behind. I'm not one to say that the film's a masterpiece.

[Xybalba69]

So basically, you don't want any kind of character development, no story and even worse a, dare I say it, PLOT.......NOOOOOOOO. All you want to see from the opening credits are a bunch of super punches being thrown with a super villain and a body count. Does that about sum it up?

more or less...we can get a story...a great Superman character development...sure...but why does it HAVE to involved boring characters or romance to be a great movie ?

we have enough soap operas all day long...

[MichaelEsquire]

A good storyteller and a good script can combine all of the elements we'd like to see and bring them in a new fashion, which is the point. We all know at this point we're going to see the same ideas (Krypton, raised in Smallville, working for Daily Planet, mild-mannered reporter, etc.) just with a modern spin on it to reintroduce Superman into the 21st Century. Perhaps it might tie in with the latest DC Universe origin that they're planning since their goal is to do the same thing.

[BATZARRO WWD]

more or less...we can get a story...a great Superman character development...sure...but why does it HAVE to involved boring characters or romance to be a great movie ?

we have enough soap operas all day long...

What? Watched too many episodes of "El Pantera", have we? :cwink:
You know, awesome action is like ham: sure, you can eat it alone. But when you sorround it with the bread of good drama and story, you get a sandwich of greatness.

[El Payaso]

I didn't say completely predictable, as it had its fair share of surprises.

You mean it’s a movie as good as any other good movie. It wasn’t a surprise mastergame and, as many other good movies, it didn’t need to be.

But the basic elements of the story were fairly apparent. I was led to my own conclusions watching Begins.

Please enlighten me about the apparent elements of B89’s story, what were they? And what conclusions did you make out of BB that weren’t apparent?

In Burton's Batman, I felt like the answers that weren't apparent were handed to the viewer through moments of outright shock, like Napier killing Wayne's parents or the Joker dying.

Yes, Hollywood has this thing with emphasizing the surprises. The same did BB when Ra’s true identity was revealed.

It filled in the gaps in the narrative that I didn't guess with concrete ideas as opposed to Begins' approach of clues and hidden meaning culminating in the various revelations throughout (hopefully that doesn't sound pretentious...).

What exactly about Joker’s death was supposed to be guessed?

Joker being Waynes’ killer or Ra’s being Ducard were the same kind of surprise. Those weren’t there to be guessed by the audience since no clue or hint was given about it. It was a revelation that was done in the last act.

You do bring up a good point about it being repetitive, though. The movie was practically obsessed with its own theme. Plus, it tended to make leaps in logic, like how Alfred plays along with Bruce's crazy idea of enforcing Gotham in a bat suit or how Bruce hardly validates leaving Ra's behind. I'm not one to say that the film's a masterpiece.

Yes, it wasn’t a masterpiece. TDK is Nolan’s definitive bat-version.

[the GRIN Reaper]

Since it's repeated so much, that's the one theme that's the most obvious. Even I have a hard time getting beyond that one to go deeper. People assume that since this one theme was so clear, there really aren't any others because why aren't they as clear?
Because they are themes ... and you have to read into them. Fear is obvious because it is a plot device, a plot theme, and directly stated in dialogue. It's hardly the only theme to the movie. Nolan asks philosophical questions about the nature of right v.s. wrong, the shades of grey in crime, how criminality develops through our own society's actions. He has a few themes at work in Batman Begins. The concepts of legacies, etc.

In TDK, the most prominent theme is chaos vs. order but it's only explicitly mentioned in dialogue when the Joker talks to Batman and Harvey Dent, respectively. Other themes are then free to have their limelight in the film, and all of them affect the plot and characters in their own way. I just have much more fun picking out the themes in TDK than BB.
Well it's a better film, maybe that's why. Not to say BEGINS is bad, or average, but everything in The Dark Knight is just done even better than it was in Batman Begins, and has almost none of it's flaws. TDK is very much a perfect storm as a movie.

And as for Superman, there are many ways to go about a Superman story, so which theme(s) would you guys like emphasized?
The theme of hope, despair and priveledge as it pertains to early America. America the ideal v.s. America the reality. No matter how much people try to get around, even Singer did in SR, Superman is a metaphor for the concept of America. I'd like the themes of the film to deal heavy with those aspects. Let him be "world's hero" in subsequent sequels. He's still supposed to represent the ideal America. And the real Superman doesn't pop babies out of chicks and then leave for 5-6 years like a baby daddy story on the "Maury Show" ... hehe

[the GRIN Reaper]

Epic is cool.
"Yes, it's very cool." ~ Tony Stark

Repetitive
Repeditive equals the obnixous amount of times "fear" is mentioned, and maybe the thing about the water main flowing into the hub beneath Wayne Tower. What else pray do tell me was so repeditive?

and spoonfeeding is lame.
What exactly was spoonfed outside of the overall theme of fear? Because there is plenty there that isn't directly stated in dialogue or used as a plot device. And if you're talking about "spoonfed" being the brief scenes we see where Bruce gets the ideas for gadgets and what not, that not's spoonfed, that was the purpose of the narrative, the draw of the story. The title of the movie alone shows you Batman isn't going to be a 2 dimensional character. He's not going to be the floating image he was in the Burton film. But rather a functioning person with a character arc. People wanted to see the transition from man to myth.

TDK was much more epic but its dialogues were less over-explicit and repetitive.
TDK wasn't more epic because the dialogue happened to be less overbearing. It was just a better movie from top to bottom, and the themes presented in the film was something that taps into the audiences present fears and minds. That relationship to the audience was what made the film more epic. The themes in Batman Begins deal with Bruce, the themes and fears in TDK go directly into the hearts of all of us, because its a unified fear we all share. And since the start of the new century, has been something that we now deal with on a potential daily basis, as citizens themselves have become targets now much they way the people in TDK are targets of terrorism, chaos, and anarchy.

Saying "fear" or "legend" 40 times is not epic.
Legend wasn't repeated 40 times. Fear might have been, but not legend. What's wrong with the use of the word legend in describing something as epic as one mans tragic journey into a mythic urban legend of this crime fighting Batman character? Why be subtle there? You can be idealistic and broad at times.

It's just repetitive. Like trying to achieve epic through repetition more than through meaningfulness.
I certainly didn't get that feeling. Our viewing experiences must have been tremendously different. But I did not get the feeling what made Batman Begins so epic was the creator's attempt to bang it into your head that what was happening was of epic scale. The word fear was driven home well through out the movie. But the story and the character's development was what screamed epic. Not imaginay repeating lines of "legend" as you so claim.

He can be praised for making good Batman films.
Good / Decent Bat-films sure ... and Nolan can be praised as the first to have damn near unanimous hits that didn't alienate and polarize. Back to back great Batman films. The most recent being well beyond anything seen in the genre thus far. Great even though he may have had idealistic dialogue and "spoonfed" certain themes in his 1st venture. The fact that he was actually saying something with his Batman was at least a start. Burton's Batman films didn't say anything. But hey ... boy they get the nod cause they had subtle dialogue. LOL ...

You wanna talk about hollow. That's all Burton's Bat-films were. No emotion, no meaning, nothing. Just Burton's repressed, quirky, lonely natured transfered onto the screen through the tool of Batman.

His bat-movies were nothing subtle visually speaking but he never felt he had to spoonfeed things or forceps some hollow "with great power comes great responsibility" type of lines.
Nothing was spoonfed beyond the use of the word fear ... so IDK what you're getting at there. And like I said, what's wrong with idealistic lines like the one above? Have you ever read that short Bruce Wayne to Batman comic expert Bob Kane created? It's much the same. You will see powerful, epic, and idealistic lines like that from time to time. How they are hollow, IDK ... seems to me Nolan and Goyer knew instantly that if you were making a beginning Batman story, things have to be idealistic and epic. Lines with the magnitude you're talking about play into that.

:up:

[Xybalba69]

What? Watched too many episodes of "El Pantera", have we? :cwink:
You know, awesome action is like ham: sure, you can eat it alone. But when you sorround it with the bread of good drama and story, you get a sandwich of greatness.

lol...not a single 'El Pantera' episode for me so far...

...ok, gimme drama as in 'Unbreakable'...and gimme a good story without lame and boring romance scenes and without Lois...they can pull it off...

IronMan had romance...about 2 minutes of it and it was great...the dance scene...just 2 minutes...thats more than enough...

...btw,...i love ham...just not some of the complements...

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I would be disappointed if there wasn't a big romance with Lois, thats a huge part of Superman to me. I want that alongside a decent storyline and engaging characters and their plights...And kick ass Superbattles. IMHO, we can have it all. And you don't have to do any stupid s**t like waiting till the sequel to get that.

Singer isn't going to sour me on the romance because he forgot to screentest his actors together to see if they had chemistry.

[nintendo nerd]

I would be disappointed if there wasn't a big romance with Lois, thats a huge part of Superman to me. I want that alongside a decent storyline and engaging characters and their plights...And kick ass Superbattles. IMHO, we can have it all. And you don't have to do any stupid s**t like waiting till the sequel to get that.

Singer isn't going to sour me on the romance because he forgot to screentest his actors together to see if they had chemistry.

Agreed. Even the overrated TDK had romance. There can't be a Superman movie without a love triangle with Superman, Clark and Lois.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Agreed. Even the overrated TDK had romance. There can't be a Superman movie without a love triangle with Superman, Clark and Lois.Yep. I didn't feel that the romance worked in any of Nolan's Bat-flicks. Lucky for me it didn't hurt the movie's too much but it was a problem to me. Batman isn't about romance to me anyway unless you consider his attraction to Selena Kyle romantic. So yes, Superman is totally about romance. The whole idea of the charatcer is romantic in my humble opinion.

P.S

I loved TDK but it is overrated to me...just like Batman Begins is, so...it's all the same to me. Still I give the movie a 9 out of 10 so I'm not going to complain too much as that is a really high rating for me and IMO a great Batman movie was finally made.

No need telling me you disagree because already know.:cwink:

[Deaths Head II]

Yep. I didn't feel that the romance worked in any of Nolan's Bat-flicks. Lucky for me it didn't hurt the movie's too much but it was a problem to me. Batman isn't about romance to me anyway unless you consider his attraction to Selena Kyle romantic. So yes, Superman is totally about romance. The whole idea of the charatcer is romantic in my humble opinion.

I agree. There is a reason Batman has something similar to a Bond girl thing going on in his films. Except for Catwoman, I don't factor Bruce's relationship that heavily in the film because I knew they were shoe horned in most of the time so the film could have a typical Hollywood love story. Apart from Selina and Vicki, none of the girls were even in the comics. Superman on the other hand either had Lana in his Smallville years or Lois in his Metropolis years. His love story has been central to the plot ever since Action Comics #1, where Clark asked Lois out, she ended up saying she loathes him because he's such a pansy, and then he showed up to save her as Superman.

[Dotten]

Make Superman a bit cooler.

I'd love to see him just land in the Middle-east right in front of a Israeli tank aiming for some Palestinian terrorists. He'd just stop it with his feet and tramp on it, with it crumbling under his feet as he walks over it, just ripping of the top. Then he'd swiftly pacify the Palestinians and ask them to play nice and quit whining.

Make him piss of some politicians. Would be nice to see him deal with bigger things then petty theft or Luthors crazy schemes.

"Everybody" would hate him for interfering with silly human fighting and Obama would tell him to stop making so many changes, while Putin would try to drop an A-bomb on his head. Superman would firmly, but "nicely", tell them to piss of and show them that next time they start a war putting civilians in the middle then he'd be there to stop them and he would not care if it's a capitalist or a commie he needs to get in the way for.

Superman will not let politics get in the way for him helping the helpless. If a cat is stuck in a tree then you better not get in his way if he intends to save the poor little pussycat.

Make him go global. :)

[Anita18]

Because they are themes ... and you have to read into them. Fear is obvious because it is a plot device, a plot theme, and directly stated in dialogue. It's hardly the only theme to the movie. Nolan asks philosophical questions about the nature of right v.s. wrong, the shades of grey in crime, how criminality develops through our own society's actions. He has a few themes at work in Batman Begins. The concepts of legacies, etc.
Right, but they basically offer it as an observation to what's happening on screen. Like, "Oh, okay." But there's nothing more really to be said about those ideas, besides the fact they're there.

In TDK, they present a number of questions that have no real answers, especially about the nature of right and wrong in what the various protagonists are doing. That's why it's so much more fun to think about them.

I would be disappointed if there wasn't a big romance with Lois, thats a huge part of Superman to me. I want that alongside a decent storyline and engaging characters and their plights...And kick ass Superbattles. IMHO, we can have it all. And you don't have to do any stupid s**t like waiting till the sequel to get that.

Singer isn't going to sour me on the romance because he forgot to screentest his actors together to see if they had chemistry.
I'm not a huge fan of romance in general (mostly because it's an excuse for characters to do stupid things), but if it's written well, portrayed by actors with good chemistry, I'm all for it.

I just didn't feel that Superman really had any feelings for Lois besides, "Well, we were together before, so everything should go back to the way it was! Right?"

[the GRIN Reaper]

Right, but they basically offer it as an observation to what's happening on screen. Like, "Oh, okay." But there's nothing more really to be said about those ideas, besides the fact they're there.
Well it's up to the viewer to get anything out of it. You're comparing the themes to how they're presented in TDK in a superior manner. In TDK the themes press you as an audience more because they are more personal. But I was just stating that they are plenty of "themes" in Batman Begins beyond the overly stated "fear" theme. Do you disagree?

In TDK, they present a number of questions that have no real answers, especially about the nature of right and wrong in what the various protagonists are doing. That's why it's so much more fun to think about them.
I agreed with you. TDK from top to bottom was a better movie.

[[A]]

Woah.. Supes fans are gonna get all over you :lmao:

[Dark Knight]

I'm not a big fan of flashback sequences, not that they haven't been used brilliantly at times, but it is basically a "writer's crutch".



Hmm...what if they used in the flashbacks in a way like Coppola did for Godfather 2? Showing the young Don Corleone story and the rise of Michael Corleone in the same film?

Oh yeah Show....Brady is out for the season....that means no Super Bowl for Patsies! Yeah Show!

[Mikelus]

Oh yeah Show....Brady is out for the season....that means no Super Bowl for Patsies! Yeah Show!

Boo, you're mean, how you dare!



































:oldrazz: ;)

[Showtime]

Hmm...what if they used in the flashbacks in a way like Coppola did for Godfather 2? Showing the young Don Corleone story and the rise of Michael Corleone in the same film?

Oh yeah Show....Brady is out for the season....that means no Super Bowl for Patsies! Yeah Show!

Well as I said, some can be done brilliantly.

I'm not worried about the Patriots.

[Nightwing1977]

Smallville is popular not because its doing Superman right but due to various factors in it that have no place in a Superman movie.

:pal:


Yeah right. Making Doomsday a normal human in Smallville?!? That surely isn't doing right. Lay off the pot.

[Mikelus]

^^ For your information:

"Eventually he is Doomsday, and he will eventually resemble the character that DC Comics fans are expecting," Witwer spoils. When asked if that means he will be wearing prosthetics later in the season, Witwer could not answer. "That I cannot comment on, but I will say that he will eventually resemble what people are expecting," he says.

"I just hope that the fans like what we do with it, because it's our own interpretation," Witwer says. "It's with the blessing of DC Comics, and we are not invalidating any of the backstory that Doomsday's had previously, but we are interpreting and adding to that backstory, and hopefully the fans dig on it, and I'll take my best shot at that guy."

source: K-site

[Nightwing1977]

It still not Doomsday anyway. It amusing some think SV is more closer to Superman mytho than SR, when it's not. Especially when Doomsday meet Supes when he was already Supes, not when he was still Clark Kent. :o

[NeoRanger]

^^ I think they're both in their own little world. Makes me sleep better at night.

[batman44]

Should we still expect to hear WB's plans for future DC movies this month?

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It still not Doomsday anyway. It amusing some think SV is more closer to Superman mytho than SR, when it's not. Especially when Doomsday meet Supes when he was already Supes, not when he was still Clark Kent. :o

SR is leagues ahead of Smallville in both quality and faithfulness.

[Nightwing1977]

^^ I think they're both in their own little world. Makes me sleep better at night.

That true. I just felt SR at least is closer to Superman in the comics than SV, despite some problem with SR.

[SatEL]

:pal:


Yeah right. Making Doomsday a normal human in Smallville?!? That surely isn't doing right. Lay off the pot.

You have misunderstood what I meant, I guess I worded it wrong . I hate Smallville and think the only great thing on there is Welling, the whole show is an abomination and should have been trashed years ago.

[SatEL]

That true. I just felt SR at least is closer to Superman in the comics than SV, despite some problem with SR.

Obviously Smallville has the bigger faults in terms of interpretation due it been on air for 8yrs. SR had a few hours to itself and it still messed up but hey if there was a comp for the biggest bastard to Superman (Excluding the Piano child of doom) I guess Smallville would win.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Obviously Smallville has the bigger faults in terms of interpretation due it been on air for 8yrs. SR had a few hours to itself and it still messed up but hey if there was a comp for the biggest bastard to Superman (Excluding the Piano child of doom) I guess Smallville would win.lol "Piano child of doom." Classic.

[Mikelus]

Of course, how simplistic, like DC has not done different versions of Superman through out the years. Smallville is just another creative version, some like it, some don't, can't please everybody, specially the narrow-minded. :word:

Character

Superman, given the serial nature of comic publishing and the length of the character's existence, has evolved as a character as his adventures have increased. The details of Superman's origin, relationships and abilities changed significantly during the course of the character's publication, from what is considered the Golden Age of comic books through the Modern Age. The powers and villains were developed through the 1940s, with Superman developing the ability to fly, and costumed villains introduced from 1941. The character was shown as learning of the existence of Krypton in 1949. The concept itself had originally been established to the reader in 1939, in the Superman comic strip.

The 1960s saw the introduction of a second Superman, Kal-L. DC had established a multiverse within the fictional universe its characters shared. This allowed characters published in the 1940s to exist alongside updated counterparts published in the 1960s. This was explained to the reader through the notion that the two groups of characters inhabited parallel Earths. The second Superman was introduced to explain to the reader Superman's membership of both the 1940s superhero team the Justice Society of America and the 1960s superhero team the Justice League of America.

The 1980s saw radical revisions of the character. DC Comics decided to remove the multiverse in a bid to simplify its comics line. This led to the rewriting of the back story of the characters DC published, Superman included. John Byrne rewrote Superman, removing many established conventions and characters from continuity, including Superboy and Supergirl. Byrne also re-established Superman's adoptive parents, The Kents, as characters. In the previous continuity the characters had been written as having died early in Superman's life (about the time of Clark Kent's graduation from high school).

The 1990s saw Superman killed by the villain Doomsday, although the character was soon resurrected. Superman also marries Lois Lane in 1996. His origin is again revisited in 2004. In 2006 Superman is stripped of his powers, although these are restored within a fictional year.

Personality

In the original Siegel and Shuster stories, Superman's personality is rough and aggressive. The character was seen stepping in to stop wife beaters, profiteers, a lynch mob and gangsters, with rather rough edges and a looser moral code than audiences may be used to today. Later writers have softened the character, and instilled a sense of idealism and moral code of conduct. Although not as cold-blooded as the early Batman, the Superman featured in the comics of the 1930s is unconcerned about the harm his strength may cause, tossing villainous characters in such a manner that fatalities would presumably occur, although these were seldom shown explicitly on the page. This came to an end late in 1940, when new editor Whitney Ellsworth instituted a code of conduct for his characters to follow, banning Superman from ever killing.

Today, Superman adheres to a strict moral code, often attributed to the Midwestern values with which he was raised. His commitment to operating within the law has been an example to many other heroes but has stirred resentment among others, who refer to him as the "big blue boy scout." Superman can be rather rigid in this trait, causing tensions in super hero community, notably with Wonder Woman (one of his closest friends) after she killed Maxwell Lord.

Having lost his homeworld of Krypton, Superman is very protective of Earth, and especially of Clark Kent’s family and friends. This same loss, combined with the pressure of using his powers responsibly, has caused Superman to feel lonely on Earth, despite his many friends, his wife and his parents. Previous encounters with people he thought to be fellow Kryptonians, Power Girl (who is, in fact from the Krypton of the Earth-Two universe) and Mon-El,have led to disappointment. The arrival of Supergirl, who has been confirmed to be not only from Krypton, but also is his cousin, has relieved this loneliness somewhat.

In Superman/Batman #3 (December 2003), Batman observes, "It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him." Later, as Infinite Crisis began, Batman admonished him for identifying with humanity too much and failing to provide the strong leadership that superhumans need.

Powers and abilities of Superman

As an influential archetype of the superhero genre, Superman possesses extraordinary powers, with the character traditionally described as "faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound", a phrase coined by Jay Morton and first used in the Superman radio serials and Max Fleischer animated shorts of the 1940sas well as the TV series of the 1950s. For most of his existence, Superman's famous arsenal of powers has included flight, super-strength, invulnerability to non-magical attacks, super-speed, vision powers (including x-ray, heat, telescopic, infra-red, and microscopic vision), super-hearing, and super-breath, which enables him to freeze objects by blowing on them, as well as exert the propulsive force of high-speed winds.

As originally conceived and presented in his early stories, Superman's powers were relatively limited, consisting of superhuman strength that allowed him to lift a car over his head, run at amazing speeds and leap one-eighth of a mile, as well as incredibly tough skin that could be pierced by nothing less than an exploding artillery shell. Siegel and Shuster compared his strength and leaping abilities to an ant and a grasshopper. When making the cartoons, the Fleischer Brothers found it difficult to keep animating him leaping and requested to DC to change his ability to flying. Writers gradually increased his powers to larger extents during the Silver Age, in which Superman could fly to other worlds and galaxies and even across universes with relative ease. He would often fly across the solar system to stop meteors from hitting the Earth, or sometimes just to clear his head. Writers found it increasingly difficult to write Superman stories in which the character was believably challenged, so DC Comics made a series of attempts to rein the character in. The most significant attempt, John Byrne's 1986 rewrite, established several hard limits on his abilities: He barely survives a nuclear blast, and his space flights are limited by how long he can hold his breath. Superman's power levels have again increased since then, with Superman currently possessing enough strength to hurl mountains, withstand nuclear blasts with ease, fly into the sun unharmed, and survive in the vacuum of outer space without oxygen.

The source of Superman's powers has changed subtly over the course of his history. It was originally stated that Superman's abilities derived from his Kryptonian heritage, which made him eons more evolved than humans. This was soon amended, with the source for the powers now based upon the establishment of Krypton's gravity as having been stronger than that of the Earth. This situation mirrors that of Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter. As Superman's powers increased, the implication that all Kryptonians had possessed the same abilities became problematic for writers, making it doubtful that a race of such beings could have been wiped out by something as trifling as an exploding planet. In part to counter this, the Superman writers established that Kryptonians, whose native star Rao had been red, only possessed superpowers under the light of a yellow sun. More recent stories have attempted to find a balance between the two explanations.

sources: Superman Database, Superman Homepage

Chose your favorite. ;)

[Dotten]

Not the only way, but the best way. He should be a super-man not only in physical strength, but also within morals and personality. He should be a kind of a man no human can be, but so wishes to be. He can do this because he is alien. He is the best of what a human can hope to be.

And he will be hated for it. That's also why many don't like Superman, but prefer characters like Batman ("easier to relate to"). Batman has his human flaws, so does most other heroes. Superman is the ultimate boy-scout and these days that is not so "political correct".

I just hope one does not reduce Supermans personality to a mere humans...

[dark_b]

Not the only way, but the best way. He should be a super-man not only in physical strength, but also within morals and personality. He should be a kind of a man no human can be, but so wishes to be. He can do this because he is alien. He is the best of what a human can hope to be.

And he will be hated for it. That's also why many don't like Superman, but prefer characters like Batman ("easier to relate to"). Batman has his human flaws, so does most other heroes. Superman is the ultimate boy-scout and these days that is not so "political correct".

I just hope one does not reduce Supermans personality to a mere humans...
i think some people dont like him because he is so boring. not complex.

but i think a good story,good writter and good director can make him interesting to other people.

[Dotten]

i think some people dont like him because he is so boring. not complex.


That's all point of view. If one analyzes Supermans story it's more complex then any living persons story. But it's not relatable in grander context. He's an alien. And thus it get's more boring for some.

To do right is often unpopular with the masses. They should try to capture that. Remember when one was young and everybody wanted you to do something "cool", but you knew it was not right? One usually gets hated for doing the right thing, the unpopular choice is often the right one.

On a grander scale comes Superman. A guy with the power to stop a war. He'd sure piss of some presidents, and the GA may be frightened by his power. "Who watches the watchmen" angle.

Frankly, if Superman excisted in our world I think many would hate him. He would be to perfect. Ant that they should capture in the big screen version. He's alone, he's helping us all, but still so many dislike him. And the weak ones out there will do anything to pull him down.

[Nightwing1977]

A Christopher Reeve film is the only way to go? No thanks. Some refer that to SR already, so I doubt many want that again. Beside, we don't need campiness again & Otis. :p

[El Payaso]

Personality

In the original Siegel and Shuster stories, Superman's personality is rough and aggressive. The character was seen stepping in to stop wife beaters, profiteers, a lynch mob and gangsters, with rather rough edges and a looser moral code than audiences may be used to today. Later writers have softened the character, and instilled a sense of idealism and moral code of conduct. Although not as cold-blooded as the early Batman, the Superman featured in the comics of the 1930s is unconcerned about the harm his strength may cause, tossing villainous characters in such a manner that fatalities would presumably occur, although these were seldom shown explicitly on the page.
Ah, my dream Superman version. :word:

[C. W. Saturn]

I cannot see how the early Batman was more cold-blooded than the early Superman.

[FlawlessVictory]

Obviously Smallville has the bigger faults in terms of interpretation due it been on air for 8yrs. SR had a few hours to itself and it still messed up but hey if there was a comp for the biggest bastard to Superman (Excluding the Piano child of doom) I guess Smallville would win.

:lmao: Priceless.

[El Payaso]

I cannot see how the early Batman was more cold-blooded than the early Superman.

He killed in certain ocassions and was fine with it.

[NeoRanger]

^^ Superman did as well. And when he didn't, but a villain met his end anyway, Superman would be a little too jolly about it.

Of course I haven't read original Batman to make the comparisson. But I've heard that he was carrying a gun around, so if he blew people's brains out, I can somewhat understand the cold-blooded comment.

[C. W. Saturn]

Of course I haven't read original Batman to make the comparisson. But I've heard that he was carrying a gun around, so if he blew people's brains out, I can somewhat understand the cold-blooded comment.

Nah. He didn't blow out anyone's brain. The early Superman and Batman aren't really that different in that regard.

Hawkman was even worse.

[Lighthouse]

James Marsden Explains Why ‘Superman Returns’ Didn’t Fly (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/22/james-marsden-explains-why-superman-returns-didnt-fly/#comments)

[Spade]

I disagree with Marsden. Superman Returns featured a Superman who had dubious morals and existed within a depressing world. I would honestly be concerned if I had a kid who watched Returns and told me they aspired to be like the irresponsible Superman featured within. It's not a good homage to the virtuous portrayl Reeve gave us. The "Superman is invincible, thus no one likes him" argument is a flawed one, too. Superman II had Clark both invincible to a degree and mortal for all intents and purposes, and judging by its success audiences were held in thrall throughout. So you can have a Superman who's pitted against the odds and still avoids being a Dark Knight.

[SuperDaniel]

I completely disagree with Marsden. The movie didn't fly because it was a poorly done story, depressing and dull world, bad costume, bad and silly character motivations and struggles and his character was more Supermanly than Superman himself.

And lets not get into the kid thing...

I find hilarious that people blame the character instead of their own movie and direction...

[solidsnake86]

you know what i like best about the article, this quote:

it’s somewhat ironic, perhaps, that DC Direct recently chose Christopher Reeve to be the latest in their line of celebrity figurines.

Why? Because nobody really cares about that version of the character anymore, certainly not in any real way beyond base nostalgia, “Superman Returns” star James Marsden insisted.

[dark_b]

if this 200 milion budget movie would have more IM,TF type jokes and action and if it wouldnt make more money then we could have talked about story.

i still can not belive that people are again mentioning story. after movies like TF,IM,IJ people think that story is important for milions? come on.

[Ultimate_Superman]

James Marsden Explains Why ‘Superman Returns’ Didn’t Fly (http://splashpage.mtv.com/2008/09/22/james-marsden-explains-why-superman-returns-didnt-fly/#comments)I think he is wrong and right. Wrong because the average comic book reader loves a Superman who is not dark but right in the terms that the General Public wants to see a darker Superman who kicks ass and takes names later. See I think the General Public wouldn't really want to see the Superman we see in Action Comics and all but they would want to see a Superman that is more darker and more flawed in his morals. Which I hope I am wrong about but that is how I think the public would like to see Superman now and its sad really.

[Crook]

Did he completely forget about Spider-Man? :funny:

One thing he got right, is the film didn't resonate with this generation, and that SR was very old-school. Which is correct. We need a film franchise tailored for the modern age.

[NeoRanger]

He's not entirely off mark, he just generalizes too much. Not very strange either, since people from other generations tend to do that. Even if we leave all the fan issues aside, the pacing, the overall cast (despite whichever exceptions) and so on and so forth, "Returns" failed to portray the coolness of Superman; in fact it helped prolong the misconception that the guy has nothing cool going on for him. It's a rather promeninet theory, even among Superman fans, that Superman is too virtuous for people to like. Which is false; people don't prefer moody over nice, they just prefer eye-catching than dull. I point to the first Spider-Man and, hell, even Marsden's character in SR. Superman fans who dislike the movie -myself included- have on occasion liked Richard better than Superman.

[Byron Long]

I agree with Marsden. People want to see jaded heroes.

[Anita18]

The "Superman is invincible, thus no one likes him" argument is a flawed one, too. Superman II had Clark both invincible to a degree and mortal for all intents and purposes, and judging by its success audiences were held in thrall throughout. So you can have a Superman who's pitted against the odds and still avoids being a Dark Knight.
Invincible doesn't mean flawless, but given his powers, Superman can't be ALL light. He can't be just like Gandhi or Mother Teresa - Superman is given super-strength for a reason. People want to see him hit someone, preferably another super-powered villain. You can't have him pitted against a supervillain and have him be a complete goody-two-shoes boy scout. He has to be able to fight back. But it all depends on what they want to do for story.

And yes, I think SR's story was flawed. Dumb action movies like Bay's films still have to have some kind of story that's consistent within its world (plus, the audience knows what it's getting from the beginning), but SR's story was not consistent within the world that it portrayed.

[Anubis]

I agree with Marsden. People want to see jaded heroes.




.....Are you a porn star?

[Slugster]

NO THEY DON'T! They want to see their hero in ACTION! NOT a love story and some stupid bald guy who wants to sell ocean view property. THEY NEED A HERO TO SAVE US ALL! WITH A formidable FOE! THE (DARKSIED) TO THE STORY can be the Villain AND a Corporate Tycoon who is deranged with hate for Superman because of who he is and what he stands for.
There is evil all around and just what we need is a Hero...

[The son becomes]

I still think there were some great ideas in SR, I think the storyline and writing was good but I'm convinced something was lost in the editing suite and a better film was made, we just didn't get to see it.

[The Guard]

I love James Marsden...but he's completely backwards in his thinking on SUPERMAN RETURNS, except for the action part.