All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - Part 67

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey, Superman the movie had that cool fault repairing scene with the lava. And had the hula-hoop phantom zone, and some obvious green screen work, and an obvious miniature with the dam-repair scene. And didn't have any big fights or punching from Superman.

Okay, so it is more dated then I'd want to admit :)
Did you quote the wrong post? :woot:
 
^ To avoid the JLA chatting it up for an extended period of time, and taking the focus away from the titular character. :D
 
I'll be happy with just Man of Steel if we don't get a sequel.
 
Yes x1000.

Cumberbatch would destroy the role of Brainiac in the best way possible. Just imagining him saying the word "Kryptonian" is awesome.

Or he could voice the new Batman in disguise. Im not sure if he could do an American accent though.
 
I'll be happy with just Man of Steel if we don't get a sequel.
You have to take what you can get. If this is a truly great Superman film, I think we should all just be happy for that. :up:
 
Did you quote the wrong post? :woot:

Yes, I did. Superman:The Movie had admirable sets and compositing, and disaster effects. But the medium shots revealed the fuzzy background, while the wide shots indicated that KalEl was traveling too slow for proper superspeed. Only the close-ups work today, IMHO.
 
I'm still waiting to see Superman go flying through the Ihop sign.
 
I adore Cumberbatch but I see him going the road of the actor who is fan cast for every role...

He's a smart actor who goes for scripts and not the big hollywood films by the look of it. He's already due to star in a number of British TV shows. He also said recently he signed up for a fourth series of Sherlock, anyone who is going for Hollywood fame wouldn't do that IMO.
 
Except that is exactly what The Avengers is. It is sequel to IM/IM2, TFA and Thor. That is the entire beauty of it.

The Iron Man numbers game has everything to do with the release of IM2 and the early attempt to capitalize. But there is a reason they are going with subtitles for every other film.

It isn't the Iron Man franchise, or the Thor franchise. It is the all encompassing Avengers franchise.


Unlike the plan that you're proposing for Superman, in "The Avengers" case, at least they had solo films to establish most of the major characters presented in that film.

And again, why should Superman have to share his sequel with any other heroes? It's one thing if it's a JLA film, but another thing if it's supposed to be his titular sequel. Plus, Joss has stated that "The Avengers" was more about the team than any one character and that each of the main heroes had to put aside their own personal issues, issues that are reserved for their own films to be explored in, in order to be the cohesive unit that they needed to be.

Plus, it doesn't answer the notion that to say that Superman needs those heroes in his sequel for it to be successful is like saying that he's not capable of presenting a great sequel on his own.

Iron Man 3 did fine without any of the other Avengers, and I'm sure TDW will do great without them as well.
 
Having Dicaprio would be cool but I dont think he'd want to do a Superhero movie.

Yea but after that Ledger period of celebration, it almost seemed like Nolan could have got Daniel Day himself on board.

I would personally love to see a high profile like leo in the role.
Plus, it not like this franchise is adverse to getting big celebrated actors on board.
 
Or he could voice the new Batman in disguise. Im not sure if he could do an American accent though.

Cumberbatch's character in STID had a voice that I thought was closer to my dream Batman voice than any actor. Of course, Batman's voice has to be a LITTLE less sinister, but not by much. I want this new Batman to be chilling.
 
Yea but after that Ledger period of celebration, it almost seemed like Nolan could have got Daniel Day himself on board.

I would personally love to see a high profile like leo in the role.
Plus, it not like this franchise is adverse to getting big celebrated actors on board.

Well MOS is off to a good start when it comes to getting some high profile actors on board. I mean, I never thought that I'd ever see the likes of Amy Adams and Russell Crowe involved with a Comic Book Genre film.
 
Well MOS is off to a good start when it comes to getting some high profile actors on board. I mean, I never thought that I'd ever see the likes of Amy Adams and Russell Crowe involved with a Comic Book Genre film.

Amy has always wanted to be Lois though.
 
It would be a coup if they could get Leo or someone just as big for Lex....

Imagine seeing just hints at Lex throughout MoS, ie,. Lex corp tower, news reports stating Lex Luthor has giving X amount of money to this charity or that one.

Then, at the end of the film., an assit walks into a dark office at Lex-corp, we see a man standing with his back to us.
He's looking out at the damage done to Metropolis. The asst. says ''excuse me Lex'', the man turns and we see either a Leo, Damon, or day-Lewis,...your choice.
 
Amy has always wanted to be Lois though.

Tbh, that was news for me when I first heard her saying that on Jay Leno (way after she had completed filming for the role).
 
Would you guys hate it if we had a Lex that had hair?
 
It would be a coup if they could get Leo or someone just as big for Lex....

Imagine seeing just hints at Lex throughout MoS, ie,. Lex corp tower, news reports stating Lex Luthor has giving X amount of money to this charity or that one.

Then, at the end of the film., an assit walks into a dark office at Lex-corp, we see a man sitting with his back to us. The asst. says ''excuse me Lex'', the chair turns and we see either a Leo, Damon, or day-Lewis,...your choice.

I wonder how people would feel if we got the likes of Denzel as Lex. That'd be something.
 
If only Grant Morrison could act, he would've been the ideal Luthor.
 
Unlike the plan that you're proposing for Superman, in "The Avengers" case, at least they had solo films to establish most of the major characters presented in that film.

And again, why should Superman have to share his sequel with any other heroes? It's one thing if it's a JLA film, but another thing if it's supposed to be his titular sequel. Plus, Joss has stated that "The Avengers" was more about the team than any one character and that each of the main heroes had to put aside their own personal issues, issues that are reserved for their own films to be explored in, in order to be the cohesive unit that they needed to be.

Plus, it doesn't answer the notion that to say that Superman needs those heroes in his sequel for it to be successful is like saying that he's not capable of presenting a great sequel on his own.

Iron Man 3 did fine without any of the other Avengers, and I'm sure TDW will do great without them as well.
I am not saying he needs others to have a successful sequel in terms of money. I am talking about creatively, what might be best.

Also not sure you point on the Avengers. Of course that is what the film was about, but it did so with real arcs for 7 different characters.

Finally, on the "no solo films" thing. The whole point is to establish these characters alongside Superman and Batman so they can have their own solo films. Superman and Batman bringing together heroes to protect Earth sounds perfect imo.

If only Grant Morrison could act, he would've been the ideal Luthor.
He'll just have to settle for writing the best Lex there has been. :cwink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,304
Messages
22,082,646
Members
45,882
Latest member
Charles Xavier
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"