All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 27

[Rust]

For a good stretch, the Superman movie rights were never 100% within WB’s control. After Cannon Films’ SIV, the rights reverted back to the Salkinds. Finally, WB reacquired them in the early 90s (producing L&C); and by the mid-to-late 90s they were looking at a new film (Superman Lives). So it wasn’t as if WB didn’t care about the property.

Right. Legal and practical issues. Still took longer that you'd think with a property like that.

 

[dark_b]

Maybe because all the ideas between 1987 and 2006 sucked ass and it's sad the best idea in 20 years was Returns

Returns was not an origin movie and they tryed something new with the kid. MOS is a classic oldschool origin movie that has all the same beats that every comicbook movie has. am i hyped? of course i am after the last trailer. i am a superman fan and the movie looks cool.

but lets give Singer some credit for trying to do something new.

 

[Rust]

The only new things Singer added the Superman lore was the kid and a mopy Superman.

The rest just felt like a retread. Nothing new overall imo.

MOS is doing so many new things with the material, while (hopefully) also rebooting the origin-angle somewhat.

 

[STARMAN]

I want them to try new stuff. I want them to try something different. But as long as it improves the general mythology not destroys it.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Superman having a kid isn't new. Nor is he feeling alienated from the human race. Or the Christ allegory.

Then again, The Man of Steel isn't treading new territory either contrary to their spin.

 

[Dr.]

Right. Legal and practical issues. Still took longer that you'd think with a property like that.

Well, after SIII, Supergirl and the Superboy TV series, fair to say that the Salkinds had run out of gas. So it was actually a blessing that they never took another shot. Ditto for Cannon Films.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Weren't the Salkinds involved with Superman IV?

 

[STARMAN]

I don't think they were involved with Superman IV.

 

[Rust]

Superman having a kid isn't new. Nor is he feeling alienated from the human race. Or the Christ allegory.

Then again, The Man of Steel isn't treading new territory either contrary to their spin.

I was talking solely about the celuloid-Superman and with that MOS is taking some welcome liberties. As opposed to Singer.

The CBs I know next to nothing about.

 

[dark_b]

Superman having a kid isn't new. Nor is he feeling alienated from the human race. Or the Christ allegory.

Then again, The Man of Steel isn't treading new territory either contrary to their spin.

i meant in movies. i know that he had kids in comicbooks.

 

[dark_b]

I was talking solely about the celuloid-Superman and with that MOS is taking some welcome liberties. As opposed to Singer.

The CBs I know next to nothing about.

that were hated by the superman fanboy community in 2004-2010.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I was talking solely about the celuloid-Superman and with that MOS is taking some welcome liberties. As opposed to Singer.

The CBs I know next to nothing about.

Redoing the origin from Krypton to his becoming Earth's protector (Zod as the key physical villain, Pa Kent dies scaring young Clark, he feels odd/different for his powers and not being able to tell anyone, he moves to Metropolis where he meets/falls for Lois, etc.) with a big name cast and an unknown in the lead. Totally different from Donner and "that hack" Singer.

Not knocking that. Its fine. But you guys need to put down the Kool-Aid. This ain't a reinvention of the wheel.

 

[Torrente]

Returns was not an origin movie and they tryed something new with the kid. MOS is a classic oldschool origin movie that has all the same beats that every comicbook movie has. am i hyped? of course i am after the last trailer. i am a superman fan and the movie looks cool.

but lets give Singer some credit for trying to do something new.

I'm one of those people that will always give him credit for it. I think SR was a good piece of film, just not a good SUPERMAN one.
IMO he is a great director, the problem was that after so many years without a big screen version of supes he gave us a pretty somber character when we needed a new version of THE MAN OF STEEL...

 

[Rust]

that were hated by the superman fanboy community in 2004-2010.

Yeah, apparently people are more forgiving these days...?

Redoing the origin from Krypton to his becoming Earth's protector (Zod as the key physical villain, Pa Kent dies scaring young Clark, he feels odd/different for his powers and not being able to tell anyone, he moves to Metropolis where he meets/falls for Lois, etc.) with a big name cast and an unknown in the lead. Totally different from Donner and "that hack" Singer.

Not knocking that. Its fine. But you guys need to put down the Kool-Aid. This ain't a reinvention of the wheel.

Of course some of the main characteristics of Superman is there like the origin, and yes, Zod is obviously a retread. But they're still adding a lot of new details and angles (big or small) to what we've seen before onscreen. That's what I was going for in response to dark_b.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

I'm one of those people that will always give him credit for it. I think SR was a good piece of film, just not a good SUPERMAN one.
IMO he is a great director, the problem was that after so many years without a big screen version of supes he gave us a pretty somber character when we needed a new version of THE MAN OF STEEL...

Returns was a decent movie and romance film.
It was a horrible comic book movie

 

[Micromind]

I am of the opinion that some familiar notes have to be included in a Superman movie, otherwise it will stray away in a different direction.

Singer tried to use familiar material in SR, and I would say that Nolan-Snyder are also including many familiar beats in MOS (with a different packaging)

Can't blame Singer or Nolan-Snyder for that either.

If this movie proves unsuccessful to relaunch Superman, the next attempt (whenever that happens) will have a completely unrecognizable elements and I am not interested in that.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

I am of the opinion that some familiar notes have to e included in a Superman movie, otherwise it will stray away in a different direction.

Singer tried to use familiar material in SR, and I would say that Nolan-Snyder are also including many familiar beats in MOS (with a different packaging)

Can't blame Singer or Nolan-Snyder for that either.

If this movie proves unsuccessful to relaunch Superman, the next attempt (whenever that happens) will have a completely unrecognizable elements and I am not interested in that.

If MOS is unsuccessful you can kiss another superman film goodbye for another 10-20 years

 

[Rust]

Somehow I wouldnt count on it.

 

[ConnorKon-El]

Somehow I wouldnt count on it.

If MOS flops do you really think WB would continue with a JLA film.
Because it would be a while ( to say the least) before another Solo Superman film would be produced.

 

[Mad Love]

Don't even want to think about MOS failing

 

[Rust]

If MOS flops do you really think WB would continue with a JLA film.
Because it would be a while ( to say the least) before another Solo Superman film would be produced.

Dunno about JL, but theyd try Superman again in less than 10 years, I seriously believe that. OR reboot him in JL. WB just comes off very desperate, stubborn and stupid sometimes. Well, most film studios do.

 

[tomoe]

I'm one of those people that will always give him credit for it. I think SR was a good piece of film, just not a good SUPERMAN one.
IMO he is a great director, the problem was that after so many years without a big screen version of supes he gave us a pretty somber character when we needed a new version of THE MAN OF STEEL...

MOS looks, if anything, even more somber than SR. I hope this is not the case.

 

[Dr.]

I am of the opinion that some familiar notes have to be included in a Superman movie, otherwise it will stray away in a different direction.

I take the “radical” view that superheroes aren’t a deep well of interesting stories . With any luck, a decent movie trilogy is possible. And typically, the 1st/origin film is the best because it contains the most clearly defined arc. So as a relaunch/reboot, MOS’s best chance of success was to revisit the origin.

And by no means is this a bad thing. The story of Hamlet, for example, keeps getting retold too.

 

[Mad Love]

They are retold because there is something deep about them.

 

[Micromind]

I take the “radical” view that superheroes aren’t a deep well of interesting stories . With any luck, a decent movie trilogy is possible. And typically, the 1st/origin film is the best because it contains the most clearly defined arc. So as a relaunch/reboot, MOS’s best chance of success was to revisit the origin.

And by no means is this a bad thing. The story of Hamlet, for example, keeps get retold too.

Yup, as superhero origin stories are akin to mythologies.