All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - Part 68

[Deserana]

What time (and time zone) are we expecting these reviews/first comments?

 

[Kane52630]

It would be a crime if we saw Wally before Barry.

Nah the real crime is not seeing any Flash before Quicksilver.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Nah the real crime is not seeing any Flash before Quicksilver.

Before two Quicksilvers.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Or an Ant-Man movie before a Wonder Woman movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

According to DC it would be a crime for us to ever see Sally again.

And they can kiss my lighting bolt for that.

 

[Kane52630]

Before two Quicksilvers.

Oh yeah.

 

[ThreadPool]

And they can kiss my lighting bolt for that.

I love how my phone said, "Screw Wally! You meant to spell Sally!"
DC virus in my operating system?...

 

[Shikamaru]

On the topic of trilogies, I do agree that they are overrated especially when it comes to superhero films. There is no reason why we have to cap things off at a trilogy.

What people seem to forget is that unlike other movie franchises with other characters that get milked past 3 movies, superheroes were specifically created from their conception to be able to maintain long ongoing stories with multiple story arcs, multiple villains, a supporting cast, etc. It is not milking if the franchise is naturally meant for that. This is why TV is often a much better place for superheroes (animation counts) because you can do that kinda stuff on there. It is no coincidence that the first adaptations of our beloved characters were on TV and it is also no coincidence that what we often consider to be the best adaptation of a character is often a long ongoing TV series (Batman TAS - best Batman adaptation, Spectacular Spider-Man - best Spidey adaptation, JL/JLU - Best Justice League adaptation, etc.). Even think of all the superhero film franchises where the first film is just them trying to get the origin out of the way just so that they could tell standard stories with the character at hand in every sequel after that.

We are witnessing movies become more and more like TV especially since the start of this decade. The first film in a franchise is almost like a pilot now, as in something studios put out to see if it's successful and if it is then they make more movies. We've finally reached a point in which we can stay faithful to the full natural potential of superheroes on the big screen and we no longer have to limit them to just 2 or 3 stories. So why cap off this Superman at a trilogy?

 

[Kal-El.9859]

On the topic of trilogies, I do agree that they are overrated especially when it comes to superhero films. There is no reason why we have to cap things off at a trilogy.

What people seem to forget is that unlike other movie franchises with other characters that get milked past 3 movies, superheroes were specifically created from their conception to be able to maintain long ongoing stories with multiple story arcs, multiple villains, a supporting cast, etc. It is not milking if the franchise is naturally meant for that. This is why TV is often a much better place for superheroes (animation counts) because you can do that kinda stuff on there. It is no coincidence that the first adaptations of our beloved characters were on TV and it is also no coincidence that what we often consider to be the best adaptation of a character is often a long ongoing TV series (Batman TAS - best Batman adaptation, Spectacular Spider-Man - best Spidey adaptation, JL/JLU - Best Justice League adaptation, etc.). Even think of all the superhero film franchises where the first film is just them trying to get the origin out of the way just so that they could tell standard stories with the character at hand in every sequel after that.

We are witnessing movies become more and more like TV especially since the start of this decade. The first film in a franchise is almost like a pilot now, as in something studios put out to see if it's successful and if it is then they make more movies. We've finally reached a point in which we can stay faithful to the full natural potential of superheroes on the big screen and we no longer have to limit them to just 2 or 3 stories. So why cap off this Superman at a trilogy?

I agree, why stop at a trilogy??

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

On the topic of trilogies, I do agree that they are overrated especially when it comes to superhero films. There is no reason why we have to cap things off at a trilogy.

What people seem to forget is that unlike other movie franchises with other characters that get milked past 3 movies, superheroes were specifically created from their conception to be able to maintain long ongoing stories with multiple story arcs, multiple villains, a supporting cast, etc. It is not milking if the franchise is naturally meant for that. This is why TV is often a much better place for superheroes (animation counts) because you can do that kinda stuff on there. It is no coincidence that the first adaptations of our beloved characters were on TV and it is also no coincidence that what we often consider to be the best adaptation of a character is often a long ongoing TV series (Batman TAS - best Batman adaptation, Spectacular Spider-Man - best Spidey adaptation, JL/JLU - Best Justice League adaptation, etc.). Even think of all the superhero film franchises where the first film is just them trying to get the origin out of the way just so that they could tell standard stories with the character at hand in every sequel after that.

We are witnessing movies become more and more like TV especially since the start of this decade. The first film in a franchise is almost like a pilot now, as in something studios put out to see if it's successful and if it is then they make more movies. We've finally reached a point in which we can stay faithful to the full natural potential of superheroes on the big screen and we no longer have to limit them to just 2 or 3 stories. So why cap off this Superman at a trilogy?

Yes, I feel like Superman should be in 3 stand-alone stories (though other heroes may have cameros), at least 2 or 3 crossover stories, and be referenced throughout. Same with pretty much every hero in the DCU.

Whatever makes the best story. If it means adding Supergirl, or Batman, so be it. I feel like origin stories are best stand-alone, but sequels can inhibit a larger universe. I feel like the scale would have to go beyond the bounds of Nolan, if WB wants to create a grand DCU. WB should bring James Tucker to live action, or even Bruce Timm (though he's retired).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I love how my phone said, "Screw Wally! You meant to spell Sally!"
DC virus in my operating system?...

I took it as a nickname you had for The Fastest Man to ever exist.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I agree, why stop at a trilogy??

This question is OK if you don't mind re-casting. If you get legitimately good actors to play these characters, they aren't necessarily going to want to keep playing those characters over and over and over for many years.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

This question is OK if you don't mind re-casting. If you get legitimately good actors to play these characters, they aren't necessarily going to want to keep playing those characters over and over and over for many years.

Unless they're Conroy. I love me some Conroy.

 

[Shikamaru]

Recasting is fine. I have no problem with it as long as the new actors coming in will be good.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Recasting is fine. I have no problem with it as long as the new actors coming in will be good.

Yeah. They might be able to bring out another aspect of the characters.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Unless they're Conroy. I love me some Conroy.

I love Conroy too, but he is not in the same position as people like Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, etc.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

This question is OK if you don't mind re-casting. If you get legitimately good actors to play these characters, they aren't necessarily going to want to keep playing those characters over and over and over for many years.

I mean look at the Bond franchise. He's not a superhero but they didn't end them after Connery played Bond 3 times or after Craig did 3 movies...and they certainly didn't end them after Moore played Bond in 3 movies. If you can get a legit phenomenal actor who looks the part and they can keep coming up with great story lines then of course continue on with the franchise...

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Anyone notice how the outfit on the far right pretty much mirrors Future Clark Kent's garb in the now defunct Smallville show?

 

[Nicko-Ray]

^ So that IS Daily Planet Clark's get up?

 

[STARMAN]

Please don't tell me Connorkon-el got banned. I liked him.

 

[Mako]

That's Perry's wardrobe I believe.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

That's Perry's wardrobe I believe.

Is it really?

 

[MrMaooz]

Please don't tell me Connorkon-el got banned. I liked him.

Wait, he's banned?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I mean look at the Bond franchise. He's not a superhero but they didn't end them after Connery played Bond 3 times or after Craig did 3 movies...and they certainly didn't end them after Moore played Bond in 3 movies. If you can get a legit phenomenal actor who looks the part and they can keep coming up with great story lines then of course continue on with the franchise...

Yeah. Bond is an example of what the supefhero genre should be in terms of variety.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's Perry's wardrobe I believe.

Yes it is.