How To Correct a Misconception Made by Superman Returns

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by markaudette

Superman may not exactly a Dostoevsky character, but a Superman movie should, in part should always be about morality.

Jor-el: "You must not interfere with human history."

or

Clark: "All those powers, all those things I can do and I couldn't even save him."

Superman may not be a very complex person but the universe has become extroidnarily complex because of his existance on Earth.

Which, again, could apply to any Superhero. The more you try and make him stand out from a character standpoint, I believe the more it's overthought and forced, and takes away from the entertainment factor in a movie. Hit some good key points with the characterization, but keep things moving along with good energy and impact. Let the movie experience stand out, and then people will naturally look deeper and draw more out of the character.

[Fresh Prince]

Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY

Clearfully read my post before you respond.

I did not say you said that, just replied to you saying unless you want Supes to be that in which I was saying Superman should not be a dumb fun action flick like Transformers....Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Webhead2006]

sure dc has been reformed into DCE but there is still no solid plans or directions going for ww/flash/aquaman/etc.... characters. Then with superman with all the legal stuff that is a factor in why nothing is going on with the character for film right? So why would they want to put a superman cameo in another film when they dont have a set actor or a set plan to go on with superman in the future. It would be a waste to go with one guy/look but then when the whole legal stuff is over and a film to happen it ends up being a totally different superman and look and all that.

[Fresh Prince]

Why not make a made for tv movie then since they cannot make a movie.

[Blackman]

please no TV movie. I really dont see any benefit in it at all.

[Webhead2006]

made for tv movie for superman, well if they have so much trouble trying to do a big budget film i doubt a tv movie would happen. Superman is just such a mess right now which sucks alot darn all the legal troubles and then the execs cant decide on things.

[Fresh Prince]

Well their goes the tv movie.

[RachelDawes]

Originally Posted by KalMart

He's not exactly a Dostoevsky character.

One can depict Superman's strength, courage, and wisdom like the OP wanted without making him a Dostoevsky character. Without that strength, courage, and wisdom he's just some generic superhero.

But the more exciting and engaging they make the big stuff, the more interesting the little stuff he does and says will be.

Yep, but the little stuff has to be there.

[Nightwing1977]

Originally Posted by Fresh Prince

Why not make a made for tv movie then since they cannot make a movie.

The problem is budget. We need special effects that look amazing & not fake looking.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

One can depict Superman's strength, courage, and wisdom like the OP wanted without making him a Dostoevsky character. Without that strength, courage, and wisdom he's just some generic superhero.

All superheroes are pretty generic in terms of movies except to those who follow them avidly. How much of that internal stuff can you pack into a 2-hr period? Just enough to give the character a personality and purpose...hopefully unique to them...while you give the audience a fun ride that's always moving forward. Better yet, show his strength, courage and wisdom with what he does...moreso than what he thinks/says/desires/laments/ponders/etc.

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

Yep, but the little stuff has to be there.

A little is fine...but if Supes fans are looking to translate what they feel the character is 'on the inside' and all that....it'd probably take more than a few films unless you're just going to make them ponderous character-studies. And again....we're not talking Dostoevsky here. Gotta keep things moving and include just enough in there for those who are looking for it, so long as we don't have to pause for it to come across. Shouldn't be that hard with a character like Superman.

[RachelDawes]

Originally Posted by KalMart

All superheroes are pretty generic in terms of movies except to those who follow them avidly. How much of that internal stuff can you pack into a 2-hr period? Just enough to give the character a personality and purpose...hopefully unique to them...while you give the audience a fun ride that's always moving forward. Better yet, show his strength, courage and wisdom with what he does...moreso than what he thinks/says/desires/laments/ponders/etc.

Which, as far as I can tell, is all that the OP is asking for.

A little is fine...but if Supes fans are looking to translate what they feel the character is 'on the inside' and all that....it'd probably take more than a few films unless you're just going to make them ponderous character-studies. And again....we're not talking Dostoevsky here. Gotta keep things moving and include just enough in there for those who are looking for it, so long as we don't have to pause for it to come across. Shouldn't be that hard with a character like Superman.

A BB-style movie that blends action and character would be fine with me. Exploring Superman's personality, allowing the audience to grow and learn with him, would be the best aspect of an origin movie IMO. I think all of us are thinking in terms of a trilogy so anything not covered by the first movie could be depicted in future movies.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

Which, as far as I can tell, is all that the OP is asking for.

Never said he wasn't. At the same time, it's not like SR didn't do what he was asking either....it just didn't do it well, and offered very little energy outside of it.

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

A BB-style movie that blends action and character would be fine with me. Exploring Superman's personality, allowing the audience to grow and learn with him, would be the best aspect of an origin movie IMO. I think all of us are thinking in terms of a trilogy so anything not covered by the first movie could be depicted in future movies.

I think they should make as big of a splash as possible with a first film and not 'save' anything for sequels etc. Then if it does well, a sequel will be on order anyway, and they can cross that bridge if they get there. Also why the next film should deliver heavily on the action and excitement.

I think that what general audiences have grown rather jaded with is the Superman-being-Superman part, and not the characterization or the knowing who he is inside, etc. That (the former) what they need a new and better look at, more than anything to reestablish, him as a heavy-hitter....and redefine the experience of Superman being Superman the superhero. Not that Clark and Supes the individual should be nonexistent, but it shouldn't be a psych analysis either. Then, if there are more movies to come, they can expand on the internals a bit more once the audience investment in the experience is replenished.

[Webhead2006]

well it shouldnt end up just all action with no heart or story. I dont think supes fans want to see him reduced to a michael bay style transformers 2 deal. They need to find a good balance of action/story/heart and sprinkle in humor-romance. I would say maybe style it off say raiders of the lost ark as tone and story telling.

[SuperMike335!!]

Originally Posted by markaudette

Superman may not exactly a Dostoevsky character, but a Superman movie should, in part should always be about morality.

Jor-el: "You must not interfere with human history."

or

Clark: "All those powers, all those things I can do and I couldn't even save him."

Superman may not be a very complex person but the universe has become extroidnarily complex because of his existance on Earth.

And, as a side note, because DC formed their own movie studio like Marvel Entertainment, so help me God there is no reason whatsoever why Superman can't make an appearance in other DC movies. Like it or not we DO have a Superman for right now. Personally, I think we're lucky to have a Superman actor primed and ready ready to don the cape again if need be.

Completely agreed.

I think part of it is also Superman comming to terms with the fact that he cannot be everywhere at once, and sometimes people will still die, and he will not be able to save them from everything.

But we show he does have the disire to do so.

Superman does not want to help just to feed his ego (Luthor might however), but rather because he feels he should.

[RachelDawes]

Originally Posted by KalMart

Never said he wasn't. At the same time, it's not like SR didn't do what he was asking either....it just didn't do it well, and offered very little energy outside of it.

I would disagree, and lots of other Superman fans would too. A lot of people were put off by Superman's behavior on the movie, like his leaving without saying goodbye and later spying on Lois. Neither moment really displays Superman's wisdom, for example.

I think they should make as big of a splash as possible with a first film and not 'save' anything for sequels etc. Then if it does well, a sequel will be on order anyway, and they can cross that bridge if they get there. Also why the next film should deliver heavily on the action and excitement.

I meant smaller character moments and revelations should be saved for the sequels, not action.

I think that what general audiences have grown rather jaded with is the Superman-being-Superman part, and not the characterization or the knowing who he is inside, etc. That (the former) what they need a new and better look at, more than anything to reestablish, him as a heavy-hitter....and redefine the experience of Superman being Superman the superhero. Not that Clark and Supes the individual should be nonexistent, but it shouldn't be a psych analysis either.

Yes, Superman definitely needs more action in his next movie, but he's also seen as a dull boy scout by quite a few members of the public. Combating this image is mostly a matter of upping the action, as you say, but it's also important to show Superman's personality, and why he can be a good guy but also a badass. If nothing else, an interesting lead character ought to make for a better movie.

Then, if there are more movies to come, they can expand on the internals a bit more once the audience investment in the experience is replenished.

This is what I meant when I said that anything not covered by the first movie could be depicted in sequels.

[Mr. Earle]

Superman Returns was a tribute to Donner and Reeves. It had no substance, barely any story, and barely any dialogue.
The whole time i was watching it i was thinking to myself: "When will Singer stop masturbating to Donner?"

[Nightwing1977]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

The whole time i was watching it i was thinking to myself: "When will Singer stop masturbating to Donner?"

I hope you're joking there. That's consider a little tasteless there, especially with "masturbating to Donner?".

[Mr. Earle]

Its not tasteless, its what really happened.

[The Guard]

To a point. Singer definitely more or less did his own thing with Superman's actual character, built on Donner's mythos or not.

[Webhead2006]

well singer has been reported a huge richard donner superman fan. Since as we clearly saw with SR it was pretty much donner's superman over again with singer's new stuff added in.
I said before i am a fan of the reeve movies and do like them all. But it was a mistake making Sr be a vague sequel to donner's film. It should have been clearly new start. Sure its nice to homage and make a refrence to past incarnations of characters. But we didnt need the whole film to be that.

Hopefully the next guys will not make that mistake. Wont base the next film solely on one take on the character. So then they can look at all versions of the characters and find aspects they think work best and move on with a new original story.

[Fresh Prince]

Bottom line is Superman Returns should not of been a sequel to any of Donner's films.....just a stand alone film or Superboy movie....I would of loved the Superboy movie and no Smallville is not that.....its a made up thing.

[SuperMike335!!]

Originally Posted by Mr. Earle

Superman Returns was a tribute to Donner and Reeves. It had no substance, barely any story, and barely any dialogue.
The whole time i was watching it i was thinking to myself: "When will Singer stop masturbating to Donner?"

Thats exactly how I felt about the movie too.

[Fresh Prince]

Originally Posted by Nightwing1977

I hope you're joking there. That's consider a little tasteless there, especially with "masturbating to Donner?".

The man speaks the truth....you did not see Nolan wanting a Batman movie to continue from Burton's movies and ignore Schumaker's films.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by Fresh Prince

The man speaks the truth....you did not see Nolan wanting a Batman movie to continue from Burton's movies and ignore Schumaker's films.

And what possible point could that ever actually make?

[The Guard]

Singer was clearly a fan of Donner's movies and wanted to homage them and carry on from them, but to suggest that all he did was copy off Donner's mythology is silly at best. Singer introduced plenty of new elements to his Superman film.