All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - Part 3

[Godzilla2014]

Never knew SR made more doe than BB. That makes me happy. The fact that SR cost more than BB is irrelavent here.
People actually still have an interest in him, despite the lackluster trailers and what not PR of SR. MOS' trailers better kick behind and make Supes look crazy cool.

Keep in mind that Batman Begins didn't have the world's best marketing. It actually kind of snuck into theaters, while Superman Returns had a bit more hype around it. Also, SR may have benefited from BB itself, as it may have restored audiences' and critics' faith in DC heroes on film.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I've never understood how becoming Superman can be deemed embracing his heritage. It's not like he finds out that he comes from a long line of Superheroes... He just finds out he's an alien and that everyone else died because of their societies mistake.

What the discover of the truth does for him, is shows him what can happen to an entire planet, and entire race of people, if society fails. If people get too arrogant, if people get too selfish. Whatever reason they go with for Krypton exploding should be somehow relatable to earth.

Clark, discovering what caused the destruction of his people, and seeing the beginnings of a similar fate on earth if the world continues on as it is with no one standing for anything but Greed and Power, is then compelled to stand himself. Expose himself and do everything he can to help people, make their lives better, stop unneccesary hurt and pain where he can - and in the process bring back people's hope and motivation to be 'good'.

I think it'd be a good move to start with Krypton's destruction because of that.

You can still have Clark be clueless. I mean you can have Krypton's destruction and then the titles if you want.

But setting up the reasons why Krypton failed and then jumping into the worries of our world, and how Clark is viewing them (especially if they have him as a journo in the middle east or somethin) would be incredibly effective IMO.

It'd also be a good starting point for the differences between Zod and Clark. They both see earth as similar too Krypton, they both see a chance to get it right this time and make sure the same thing doesn't happen. But Zod wants to do it by force, whereas Clark believes in humanity still.

I like your ideas.
As for your first question, in this idea, becoming Superman would be Clark's way of embracing his heritage because he would be using the powers it granted him as Superman, becoming a living symbol of Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

 

[El Payaso]

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b249502_feud_alert_superman_dissingsuperman.html

I agree with much of what Daly says.

Many - not all - superhero movies feels the same. The action is exciting but there's not many memorable things in them.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Meh. Tim Daly is a mediocre actor who has starred in one mediocre TV series after another for decades. I'll start caring what he thinks when he does something impressive.

 

[dark_b]

I agree with much of what Daly says.

Many - not all - superhero movies feels the same. The action is exciting but there's not many memorable things in them.

HUlk 2003 was different IMO. it was a bomb muhahahahah

 

[hopefuldreamer]

This is perfect. Using the cause of the destruction of his planet (i.e., society failing) as the drive for him to be Superman and save this planet is brilliant, and hasn't been used all that often (at least not in the movies).

This is why I'm so impatient about storyline news tho. I want to know if my fantasies about this film are anywhere near the realities.

 

[Superman2007]

Meh. Tim Daly is a mediocre actor who has starred in one mediocre TV series after another for decades. I'll start caring what he thinks when he does something impressive.

Yep, he doesn't really have much room to talk. Hilarious avatar by the way. Just saw the second trailer, for that movie, and I couldn't stop laughing.

 

[Rust]

HUlk 2003 was different IMO. it was a bomb muhahahahah

Dont get the hatred for this adaptation. I still think it's one of the more interesting and daring superheromovies to this day. At least it tried to be much more than just a comicbook-movie like people have been wanting. I also thought it was a superb comicbook-movie.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

It had some decent parts; both action and quiet introspection. But the movie's pacing was awful. It tried desperately to be 'smart' by moving at the most sluggish speed it could, much the same as 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yep, he doesn't really have much room to talk. Hilarious avatar by the way. Just saw the second trailer, for that movie, and I couldn't stop laughing.

t: Thanks. Yeah, I had the same reaction. Especially when I saw Bloom's puffy hair.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Not quite true. WB was not planning on making more Superman films. Horn said tha under oath in Court.

By the end of the trial however the judge ordered WB to have a film out by 2012 or be liable for huge monetary penalties to the heirs.

Only then did WB change it's tune and fast-track MOS - people wonder why it is moving so quickly given the development hell of previous Superman films and that's simply because WB has a hard date of 12/31/12 to have the film out or be up the creek so to speak.

And you're right about sequels. It's pointless to talk about them because WB basically is going to be unable to do a sequel given the lawsuit and all.

This will be the last Superman film - as someone said above Snyder and Nolan should incorporate that in their marketing. It should elp boost interest in the film.

Why? If they are making MOS mainly for the Siegels (ordered by the judge), I don't see any reason why the Siegels should not allowed WB to use their part of rights for a sequel.
If the movie is successful they'll do a sequel. Money for all, heirs included.

 

[merced]

Why? If they are making MOS mainly for the Siegels (ordered by the judge), I don't see any reason why the Siegels should not allowed WB to use their part of rights for a sequel.
If the movie is successful they'll do a sequel. Money for all, heirs included.

Problem is that even if MOS does OK and makes money any sequel the heirs and Toberoff OK'd would come at a steep price tag to WB. As in WB gets half the profit and the others the remainder.

Plus WB fronts the money for the film while the heirs and Toberoff have no risk and just sit back for te ride.

No way IMO will WB do a Superman film where they take all the risk and get just half the profits.

 

[Doc Ock]

So....yeah...just read Superman: Birthright for the first time....why can't we get a movie about THAT!

 

[Rowsdower!]

So....yeah...just read Superman: Birthright for the first time....why can't we get a movie about THAT!

Because... uh... because ZOD isn't in it! And he's SO popular and important! And Superman can PUNCH him!

 

[Superwoman Prime]

So....yeah...just read Superman: Birthright for the first time....why can't we get a movie about THAT!

Or an expanded version of Superman: Earth One.

 

[chamber-music]

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b249502_feud_alert_superman_dissingsuperman.html

I do think he has a point. I want Snyder to show us things we have never seen before to really create a spectacle.

Remember when you first saw The Marix do bullet time?, When you first saw a light sabre fight in Star Wars, When you first saw a Alien burst out of John Hurts chest or The T-1000 being liquid metal.

Those things stuck in the mind and were memorable and exciting. A Superman movie should be ambitious his one of the most powerful superheroes. Snyder and co should treat this as an oppertunity to really push the boat out and give us some amaxing visuals or action sequences we are not going to see anywhere else

 

[SuperDaniel]

Maybe Tim Daly hasn't seen the Dark Knight. Or Watchmen. Or Sin City.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I do think he has a point. I want Snyder to show us things we have never seen before to really create a spectacle.

Remember when you first saw The Marix do bullet time?, When you first saw a light sabre fight in Star Wars, When you first saw a Alien burst out of John Hurts chest or The T-1000 being liquid metal.

Those things stuck in the mind and were memorable and exciting. A Superman movie should be ambitious his one of the most powerful superheroes. Snyder and co should treat this as an oppertunity to really push the boat out and give us some amaxing visuals or action sequences we are not going to see anywhere else

I agree. I want Man of Steel to be a memorable pop culture event, like The Dark Knight was, and even Superman: The Movie was at the time, something that people will remember for years to come. I want it to really reconstruct Superman for the 21st century, as Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy has done for Batman.

 

[merced]

I'm assuming kryptonite will be used in MOS. I don't like that - it's been overdone. Surely it's time for another weapon which can harm and maybe kill Superman.

The Lois & Clark TV series created a quantum disruptor weapon which made total sense. It attacked any living creature at the quantum level and was effective against Superman only it took longer to bring him down with the disruptor.

Oh well, I'm not fooling myself - MOS won't do something like that.

Given then the certainty that kryptonite will be used against Superman I have 2 hopes.

First, do what the Donner films and SR didn't do - actually have Superman's skin start to turn a yellow/green from the exposure. Don't overdue it as they did in Superboy where Supes turns bright green immediately.

Make it more subtle apparent that Supes skin color is changing. It will help bring home the lethality of krytonite.

In a easy and non-expensive effect to incorporate in the film.

As part of that, whomever the villains are and it looks like one might have a Kryptonian connection, explain how kryptonite affects Superman. That it drives the solar radiation from his cells weakening him immediately and killing him eventually.

That's the kind of detail I hope Snyder pays attention to.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I wanna see Kryptonite glow when in proximity with Kryptonians. Something only Smallivlle adapted for some reason. But instead of having his skin turn green, make it sort if coarse through his veins like it was poisoning is blood.

 

[Godzilla2014]

I'm assuming kryptonite will be used in MOS. I don't like that - it's been overdone. Surely it's time for another weapon which can harm and maybe kill Superman.

The Lois & Clark TV series created a quantum disruptor weapon which made total sense. It attacked any living creature at the quantum level and was effective against Superman only it took longer to bring him down with the disruptor.

Oh well, I'm not fooling myself - MOS won't do something like that.

Given then the certainty that kryptonite will be used against Superman I have 2 hopes.

First, do what the Donner films and SR didn't do - actually have Superman's skin start to turn a yellow/green from the exposure. Don't overdue it as they did in Superboy where Supes turns bright green immediately.

Make it more subtle apparent that Supes skin color is changing. It will help bring home the lethality of krytonite.

In a easy and non-expensive effect to incorporate in the film.

As part of that, whomever the villains are and it looks like one might have a Kryptonian connection, explain how kryptonite affects Superman. That it drives the solar radiation from his cells weakening him immediately and killing him eventually.

That's the kind of detail I hope Snyder pays attention to.

I agree we need to find another way to weaken Superman besides Kryptonite. As far as its effects, just have Superman collapsing to the floor,n no skin color changing or anything.

I wanna see Kryptonite glow when in proximity with Kryptonians. Something only Smallivlle adapted for some reason. But instead of having his skin turn green, make it sort if coarse through his veins like it was poisoning is blood.

Nah. Just have Superman react by collapsing to the floor, since it's his equivalent of radiation poisoning.

 

[El Payaso]

Meh. Tim Daly is a mediocre actor who has starred in one mediocre TV series after another for decades. I'll start caring what he thinks when he does something impressive.

Well, if you're consistent enough to apply that to everyone you should do something impressive before expecting someone else to care about your opinion.

HUlk 2003 was different IMO. it was a bomb muhahahahah

So? I'd rather have a good movie that doesn't make much than another average crap that makes enough to get more average sequels. After all, we're not making one cent out of those films, aren't we. So what would I care?

Maybe Tim Daly hasn't seen the Dark Knight. Or Watchmen. Or Sin City.

Absolutely. They're something different.

 

[The Batman]

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b249502_feud_alert_superman_dissingsuperman.html

dude has absolutely got a point.

Hell, even THIS movie could end up being "just another comic book movie". The cast looks good, but I'm not entirely sure this movie will blow people away.

Sad thing is...there are some Superman fans who want a "safe" Superman movie, in order to please the general audience by not doing anything risky.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Well, if you're consistent enough to apply that to everyone you should do something impressive before expecting someone else to care about your opinion.

Ooooooh, snap. Damn, you really bruised my ego with that one.

 

[dark_b]

So? I'd rather have a good movie that doesn't make much than another average crap that makes enough to get more average sequels. After all, we're not making one cent out of those films, aren't we. So what would I care?

so? do you or i pay 200 millions for a movie? would you spend 200 millions and 100 millions of marketing in am movie that has a big chance of underperforming?
they make cliche popcorn movies because there is a bigger chance that the masses will like it.i liked Hulk 2003. but this means f..... nothing. it was not my money that got lost. Hulk was different and it failed at the BO. so hollywood leanred a leasson in 2003.