All Things Superman: An Open Discussion (Spoilers) - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 92

[Smallville13]

I love Kevin Smith sometimes

It's definitely the attitude I went into MOS with, and it's an experiance I've learned from and won't let happen again.

Cause it IS all BS

I dunno. I'd say that about everything else, but Superman means alot to me.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

DC needs to do a Bond type thing for me now. Stuff these trilogys, although you can maybe still have trilogies but when its time to reboot just carry on. No need to do full on reboots after 3 films.

I'd LOVE there to be a "bonded" DC universe, ONCE it's established.
Say you have the perfect characterization and structure. Why not continue it when the actors get too old or don't care for their roles and need to be "replaced"?

I think "bonding" superheroes can bring out different sides of the characters depicted. Just as long as we get quality directors, writers, and actors to back them up.

 

[Smallville13]

I think a Bond approach is inevitable given the massive success that is the film serialization of the Marvel universe.

However I think TDK trilogy is great because it is that; a trilogy. I'd love the same treatment for MOS.

 

[PacificBoy]

Would a Bond serialization of comic book movies mean that a villain would only be visited once in the serialization's run?

 

[Smallville13]

Would a Bond serialization of comic book movies mean that a villain would only be visited once in the serialization's run?

Not if he lives at the end of it.

 

[STARMAN]

With Batman, Nolan was only going to do a handful of movies and then move on. He had an arc and completed it.
With Superman, you don't need Snyder to continue. Even if he has a vision I don't know if he would last 3 films. The Bond movies have various directors and are open ended for further adventures.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Would a Bond serialization of comic book movies mean that a villain would only be visited once in the serialization's run?

No. There's endless possibilities for villians to come back.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

With Batman, Nolan was only going to do a handful of movies and then move on. He had an arc and completed it.
With Superman, you don't need Snyder to continue. Even if he has a vision I don't know if he would last 3 films. The Bond movies have various directors and are open ended for further adventures.

Comic books have various writers and are (usually) open ended for further adventures.

 

[STARMAN]

Yes. Comic books have various writers and are open ended. I was talking about how the Nolan Batman movies had the same director and basically the same writing team for all 3 films.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Yes. Comic books have various writers and are open ended. I was talking about how the Nolan Batman movies had the same director and basically the same writing team for all 3 films.

Yeah. That's because it was guided by the idea of creating a FULL story arc, from insecure Wayne gaining an identity to Batman "ending."

I don't really agree with it, but I think it worked for the most part amongst the general audience.

 

[STARMAN]

I agree.

 

[Smallville13]

It makes for an interesting question. What would Superman's overall arc be?

We know he can't stop famine, drug trade, human trafficking, religious wars, etc, but that doesn't stop him from trying.

Just him existing inside that universe gives the people inspiration and hope. He's not troubled by his own demons like Batman who just wanted to find peace within, and retired with Selina.

Perhaps the whole 'mankind acceptance and appreciation' thing started by MOS could run until the end of the third film, where he makes the ultimate sacrifice and in his passing the world recognizes him as a hero, as Superman, and everyone raises flags and wears the 'S' symbol with pride, recognizing it means 'hope'.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Getting the world to accept him, and feeling like he's mastered the art of being both a "normal person" and a superhero. The world will be paranoid in part II, and Clark would be "green" as a reporter for the Daily Planet.

I feel like MOS should have the arc of Superman be pretty much resolved in part II, so that part 3 can just be a REALLY great stand-alone flick. I'd love it if they got engaged at the end of part 3. If Superman "met" Lois in part 1, and fell in love in part 2, they should get married in part 3, or have Superman be willing to "give her up" in order to more effectively protect the world as he knows it.

I feel like MOS3 should be the most stand-alone of the bunch, since part 1 feels like it saved many elements for the sequel, and MOS2 will probably develop those elements. MOS3 can just be a REALLY great comic book fantasy come to life. Please, DCAU writers! Come back for part 3, but bring Goyer to bounce ideas on how to make the writing consistent with "the world" of MOS.

 

[BH/HHH]

I'd LOVE there to be a "bonded" DC universe, ONCE it's established.
Say you have the perfect characterization and structure. Why not continue it when the actors get too old or don't care for their roles and need to be "replaced"?

I think "bonding" superheroes can bring out different sides of the characters depicted. Just as long as we get quality directors, writers, and actors to back them up.

Yeah I mean the main thing is to maintain a quality product. I think what bugged me about the Dark Knight trilogy was it definitively ended that universe. I think they could have really built a universe of that. You can change the tone of the films too and u don't have to say yes that's definitely the way it happened in the first or second film etc but have it reference back with the Joker saying we've done this before etc.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ Yeah, honestly ending the Baleverse was something I wouldn't have done. If Chris doesn't want to direct the third movie, why not let Jonah have a go at it? He seems to care more about the character from the pages, anyway.

Oh well. WB's "one DC movie at a time" approach is pretty much dragging out everything. I wouldn't even mind that, if the films didn't tend to be of "Jonah Hex" or "Catwoman" calibre.

 

[Tempest]

I don't see why people feel the need to attack The Avengers to defend MOS. BOTH movies were fantastic, but in very different ways, and that's fine.

I don't see why people have to bring up Avengers or Iron Man in order to tell Snyder how to 'fix' the MOS verse.

The first Iron Man movie was so bad. So, so, so bad. People loved it, I'll grant you that, but then again, people also like Gangnam Style and leggings with cropped tops.

I haven't even seen Avengers, and I can tell you how it went: Big threat. The superheros all get together, then there's a falling out. There's a couple of big battle scenes, the superheros realize they need to work together to get the job done, so they reunite, beat the bad guy, and win. Add in a few funny quips, a healthy dose of fifth-grade humor, and maybe some sort of ridiculous romance, and there's the film. Right? Am I close?

I know people like that kind of stuff, but I love it when a film or tv show surprises me by breaking the mold. MOS did that for me, and I don't want WB, the writers, or directors to change this interesting and very different Superman.

A little levity in the next MOS film wouldn't be bad, but I don't want it to turn into a two-hour comedy action film. We get those all the time. I loved the dignity and beauty of MOS, and I don't want that to be lost.

 

[Bruce Malone]

^ Yeah, honestly ending the Baleverse was something I wouldn't have done. If Chris doesn't want to direct the third movie, why not let Jonah have a go at it? He seems to care more about the character from the pages, anyway.

Oh well. WB's "one DC movie at a time" approach is pretty much dragging out everything. I wouldn't even mind that, if the films didn't tend to be of "Jonah Hex" or "Catwoman" calibre.

I don't disagree with how they wrapped up the TDK trilogy. For all the talks about never having true on-going continuity well prior to Nolan we never had a true start to finish Batman overlapping trilogy or a real connected series.

We had the Burton/Schumacher series which we're really a bunch of loose continutation films supposedly in the same series but that had little to do with each other and never were part of any grand story-line.

We needed to get a true trilogy in and we did. Now we can move forward to other aspects.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I haven't even seen Avengers, and I can tell you how it went: Big threat. The superheros all get together, then there's a falling out. There's a couple of big battle scenes, the superheros realize they need to work together to get the job done, so they reunite, beat the bad guy, and win. Add in a few funny quips, a healthy dose of fifth-grade humor, and maybe some sort of ridiculous romance, and there's the film. Right? Am I close?
.

No.

You could have made your point about taking each work of art on it's own merits more effective without the guessing game about Avengers.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I don't disagree with how they wrapped up the TDK trilogy. For all the talks about never having true on-going continuity well prior to Nolan we never had a true start to finish Batman overlapping trilogy or a real connected series.

We had the Burton/Schumacher series which we're really a bunch of loose continutation films supposedly in the same series but that had little to do with each other and never were part of any grand story-line.

We needed to get a true trilogy in and we did. Now we can move forward to other aspects.

Yeah. The TDK trilogy is the first good superhero trilogy without directorial compromise.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Yeah. The TDK trilogy is the first good superhero trilogy without directorial compromise.

I just think some people are starting to take that for granted. Regardless of the mixed comic-fan reaction to the 3rd, we did get 3 really solid batman films in one over-arching connected start to finish series.

To me that is easily as impressive as what marvel has done with the avengers business.

For Man of Steel the idea honestly should be to simply make the best sequels possible and not worry about any JL baggage. I don't like trying to force feed the marvel approach to DC. Focus on the films first, connecting to Jl second.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I feel like BOTH are possible, though. I think the MAIN thing should be to create strong films, and not cancel out a DCU. I feel like WF should be made inbetween 2 and 3, as a neat side-adventure and way of rebooting Batman. Also, if WF is good (and it will make bank no matter what), MOS3 can run off of its fumes.

 

[Juicy J]

I haven't even seen Avengers, and I can tell you how it went: Big threat. The superheros all get together, then there's a falling out. There's a couple of big battle scenes, the superheros realize they need to work together to get the job done, so they reunite, beat the bad guy, and win. Add in a few funny quips, a healthy dose of fifth-grade humor, and maybe some sort of ridiculous romance, and there's the film. Right? Am I close?

It's pretty dumb to patronize a film you haven't even seen. I mean doing it towards a movie like Grown-Ups 2 would at least be understandable, but belittling a superhero movie with almost universal acclaim in a superhero forum is just.... dumb.
Fifth grade humor? Really?

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^ I feel like that person would be too closed-minded to appreciate TA, and would point out only its flaws, real or perceived.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

The Avengers and MOS are both awesome. We are lucky to be getting so many great superhero movies now.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

^