All Things Superman: An Open Discussion

[Motown Marvel]

jim lee's zod design was beyond craptacular.

 

[Kurosawa]

I just read through Action #471-473 and couldn't help noticing how these three issues have some subtle yet striking semblance to the Superman I-II movie plot (including the Zone and characters resembling Ursa <Faora> and Non).
These comics came out at the time after Donner had been hired to direct Superman and Tom Mankiewicz had rewritten the script.
In fact, principal photography for both Supeman I and Superman II began prior to the release of these issues.
Superman I/II began filming in March 1977 and the first appearance of Faora was in the May 1977 (Action#471).
So the question is did these Action comic issues inspire Donnerverse Zod, Ursa, and Non.......or was Cary Bates, Julie Schartz, or Jeanette Kahn, privy to the Superman movie scripts (it was already being filmed at the time) and Ursa inspired him to create Faora?
Remember Superman I & II were written at the same time and were filmed concurrently (I'm not getting into the whole Richard Lester thing here!) ,
so who inspired who here?
I'm well aware that on wikipedia, in her entry, it states that Faora was the inspiration for Ursa, but when you click on the source for that tidbit of information, you will see it comes from a two year old Newsarama.com article, with the quote,
"Pre-Crisis speaking, the most famous trio were General Zod, Jax-Ur, and Faora Hu-Ul. The three frequently plotted against Superman from the Zone over the years, but rarely, if ever, made physical appearances on Earth. Still, this long-running plot served as the basis for the characters of Zod, Ursa and Non as depicted in Superman: The Movie and Superman II. "

That information is wrong, as Faora was introduced in the comics after Superman I & II had begun filming and they need scripts to in order to film!

Mankiewickz passed away last year but Cary Bates is out there...
Can some intrepid fanboy ask Cary Bates the question,
who came first, Ursa or Faora?
When was Sarah Douglas cast as Ursa?
I think the answer is clearly Ursa.....there is no way Faora could have inspired Ursa because Superman I & II were already filming, unless there were major script and cast changes during filming.
It is more likely and reasonable that Bates was inspired to create Faora and pen that storyline through the able guiding hands of Schwartz and Kahn, who had probably read the Superman movies scripts.

@ Kurosawa, what say you?

Comics at that time were released about 3-4 months ahead of the cover date. So the May issue of Action (471) was actually on the stands in February of 1977 and was written and drawn in late 1976. Mario Puzo's first draft of the Superman script, which was deemed unfilmable, was turned in to Warner's in mid-1975 and did not have Ursa in it. His July, 1976 script did feature Ursa, which could make her possibly predate Faora, according to when Faora was actually created, which may have been several years ahead of time. Ursa was nowhere near as developed as Faora-the whole concentration camp and martial arts elements were not part of Puzo's script, although her beauty and hatred of men were. It's hard to say without asking Cary Bates when he created the Faora character to determine which was first. Puzo actually was much more faithful to the comics in his earlier drafts. His Krypton still had the crystaline look instead of Joe Shuster's Krypton, which was inspired by Alex Raymond, but his Jor-El was more true to the comics version, and in fact Puzo instructed that the same actor who played Superman should play Jor-El. His first set of Phantom Zone villains were to be Jax-Ur, Zod, Professor Vakox, and Kru-El, all villains from the comics. So it's possible that he may have created Ursa after meeting with DC writers and editors. I guess DC may have created Faora in order to keep from paying Puzo for Ursa (although I'm sure his script was work-for-hire and any characters he created were the property of Warner Brothers and DC Comics, and it could have been a coincidence, but that seems unlikely that two characters so similar involved with Superman would be created at roughly the same time. Stranger things have happened, though-Bucky and Robin first appeared about the same time and are very similar characters. Regardless, Faora appeared first and is considered to be the inspiration for Ursa, which tells me that Bates and Julie Schwartz most likely had the character sitting around already and Puzo got the idea from them. Comics writers and artists sit on characters and concepts for years sometimes-for example, Kirby created the New Gods while he was still at Marvel, but never showed it to them because he didn't trust Stan or Martin Goodman.

Basically, to know for sure, one would need to ask Cary Bates. Puzo's script with Ursa was submitted in July of 76 and Bates' story was written around October-November of that year, so it's really according to when Bates came up with the character. It comes off to me like Puzo took Bates character and simplified it, but I guess it is possible that Bates was shown/told of Ursa and fleshed her out for his Faora character.

 

[Sabaoth]

Comics at that time were released about 3-4 months ahead of the cover date. So the May issue of Action (471) was actually on the stands in February of 1977 and was written and drawn in late 1976. Mario Puzo's first draft of the Superman script, which was deemed unfilmable, was turned in to Warner's in mid-1975 and did not have Ursa in it. His July, 1976 script did feature Ursa, which could make her possibly predate Faora, according to when Faora was actually created, which may have been several years ahead of time. Ursa was nowhere near as developed as Faora-the whole concentration camp and martial arts elements were not part of Puzo's script, although her beauty and hatred of men were. It's hard to say without asking Cary Bates when he created the Faora character to determine which was first. Puzo actually was much more faithful to the comics in his earlier drafts. His Krypton still had the crystaline look instead of Joe Shuster's Krypton, which was inspired by Alex Raymond, but his Jor-El was more true to the comics version, and in fact Puzo instructed that the same actor who played Superman should play Jor-El. His first set of Phantom Zone villains were to be Jax-Ur, Zod, Professor Vakox, and Kru-El, all villains from the comics. So it's possible that he may have created Ursa after meeting with DC writers and editors. I guess DC may have created Faora in order to keep from paying Puzo for Ursa (although I'm sure his script was work-for-hire and any characters he created were the property of Warner Brothers and DC Comics, and it could have been a coincidence, but that seems unlikely that two characters so similar involved with Superman would be created at roughly the same time. Stranger things have happened, though-Bucky and Robin first appeared about the same time and are very similar characters. Regardless, Faora appeared first and is considered to be the inspiration for Ursa, which tells me that Bates and Julie Schwartz most likely had the character sitting around already and Puzo got the idea from them. Comics writers and artists sit on characters and concepts for years sometimes-for example, Kirby created the New Gods while he was still at Marvel, but never showed it to them because he didn't trust Stan or Martin Goodman.

Basically, to know for sure, one would need to ask Cary Bates. Puzo's script with Ursa was submitted in July of 76 and Bates' story was written around October-November of that year, so it's really according to when Bates came up with the character. It comes off to me like Puzo took Bates character and simplified it, but I guess it is possible that Bates was shown/told of Ursa and fleshed her out for his Faora character.

Thanks, Kurosawa, for your uncanny knowledge of the Superman mythos.
I would like to emphasize that the storyline of Action Comics #471-473 fundamentally mirrors the plot of Superman II: Kryptionian villains from the Phantom Zone escape with the desire to conquer earth; yes, there is more to it, but that is the gist of it!
Is it plausible that Puizo learned of this upcoming story in the comics and decided to adapt it, or is it more likely that DC heads (Superman editor Julie Schartz and DC prez Jeanette Khan) got wind of the script?
I tried to locate Cary Bates email with no success...this would be an interesting matter to be resolved once and for all, for the sake of the Great Wide Fanboy Nerdkingdom.
That being said,
I believe the latinoreview story is absolute ******** and it makes zero sense for Snyder to go with Faora, who just happened to be created at the same time when Superman I/II had been written and was about to commence filming....
Cary Bates...are you reading this? Care to chime in...inquiring Rosario Dawson*- Angelina Jolie obsessed fanboys want to know!

* note- for fanboys who do not understand why Rosario Dawson is being suggested by some, please watch Alexander by Oliver Stone and you will understand just how wonderful she is!

 

[KRIM]

Recent interview with Zack:

[N]ewsweek: You are about to shoot new Superman with Christopher Nolan and his screenwriting collaborator David Goyer. Add your name and you've got our times hollywood dream team, much like Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan were back in the 80's.

nyder: I have to admit it is a project of my dreams and we have great expectations for it. Moreover, studio's and people's expectations are even higher. What Chris and David did to Batman was quite a revelation, so the bar is set pretty high.

N: I imagine you envision this bar in three dimensions...?

Z: Will "Superman: Man of Steel" be shot in 3D is a subject soon to be revealed. We are conducting certain experiment, which will determine the technology we'll be using.

N: Now you have to tell me more about this technology experiment! You just have to!

Z: Ok, but remember it's all in a testing phase. If it works, our "Superman" will blew Hollywood away. 3D is not James Cameron's invention, even though I'm sure he thinks otherwise. 3D movies were massively produced back in the 50's. However, visual effects were kinda modest at the time. So I came up with an idea, that Chris has found very interesting. I want to improve this old 3D technique and shoot our movie in 3D, but on a regular film reel. My visit to London interrupted this experiment for a while, but we are close to achieve what Cameron did in "Avatar" but without computers and digital cameras. I want my movie to look natural, to have this organic tape graininess. I don't want every shot to be color-corrected, digital cameras tend to lose focus. If we succeed, it will be the first professional 3D movie shot on regular cameras. And that will be total revolution.

N: Sound promising, but what about story? Do you want "Superman" in an old Richard Donner convention, the comedic Richard Lester version or maybe in this kiddish version, presented by Bryan Singer in "Superman Returns"?

Z: "Superman: Man of Steel" will be a whole new take on that superhero, and it will definitely not resemble Singer's movie, which I find extremely overstylized. My film is gonna be dark and realistic. There even was a moment, when we considered to give up all superpowers. But seriously, it's gonna be a solid, real action movie. Superman will be a real guy, evil will be tangible and Clark Kent will be working in an actual editorial office. These days nobody wants to see stories about plastic superheroes. Besides, why make them when somebody already did a long time ago. Comic book movies have entered a new era: they are unpredictable, epic and often realistic. My "Superman" will fit into these categories.

 

[sf2]

lol. kiddish version presented by bryan singer.

thanks for the news. btw.

 

[Herolee10]

N: Sound promising, but what about story? Do you want "Superman" in an old Richard Donner convention, the comedic Richard Lester version or maybe in this kiddish version, presented by Bryan Singer in "Superman Returns"?

Z: "Superman: Man of Steel" will be a whole new take on that superhero, and it will definitely not resemble Singer's movie, which I find extremely overstylized. My film is gonna be dark and realistic. There even was a moment, when we considered to give up all superpowers. But seriously, it's gonna be a solid, real action movie. Superman will be a real guy, evil will be tangible and Clark Kent will be working in an actual editorial office. These days nobody wants to see stories about plastic superheroes. Besides, why make them when somebody already did a long time ago. Comic book movies have entered a new era: they are unpredictable, epic and often realistic. My "Superman" will fit into these categories.

For a second I had a flashback of what Tim Burton was planning on doing with his take on Superman. I'm not sure how to feel if they had honestly considered on taking away superman's powers just for the sake of having a realistic action sequences.

Granted, it's true that Superman needs to be brought up in a new and modernized take, but I just hope that they don't go too grim on his character where his innate goodness is barely recognizable. I'm not asking for the perfect boyscout, but in the same time, i want them to maintain the sense of integrity that this character has within him. There's a reason why he's looked up out of most of the heroes and why he's considered a symbol of hope. I'm not asking for a perfect man.


And can someone explain to me as to what he meant when he said that "evil" will be tangible?

 

[KRIM]

Zack was joking on that first part (read the next sentence). He's not stupid, there's absolutely no way you can do a Superman film without his powers.

As for tangibility, it's likely it's in reference to handling the opposing force as one with depth and concise, idealogical values. In layman's terms: a villain you take seriously because of how real his views and personality come across. It's not just a bad guy you enjoy to watch in the comfort of your seats, there is a legitimate threat to his presence. It's not the type of character you see in a cartoon.

 

[Kurosawa]

Pretty meh interview. Lots of bluster, and a needless shot at James Cameron when Snyder is only not in his class, he's not in the same campus.

Superman has no business being realistic in any form, shape or fashion. Realism in comics and with superheroes sucks.

 

[Mr. Earle]

"My Superman will be realistic."

Oh god...

 

[Herolee10]

Zack was joking on that first part (read the next sentence). He's not stupid, there's absolutely no way you can do a Superman film without his powers.

As for tangibility, it's likely it's in reference to handling the opposing force as one with depth and concise, idealogical values. In layman's terms: a villain you take seriously because of how real his views and personality come across. It's not just a bad guy you enjoy to watch in the comfort of your seats, there is a legitimate threat to his presence. It's not the type of character you see in a cartoon.

Well that's a relief.

And if that's the route that they go with Zod, then I'll be very pleased.

 

[KRIM]

Superman has no business being realistic in any form, shape or fashion. Realism in comics and with superheroes sucks.

Only if one has a very limited view of its definition.

 

[Kurosawa]

Only if one has a very limited view of its definition.

If they do grimdark Superman with a cynical, Watchmen type world, then it is a mistake. If it is a dark and grim world and Superman's presence in it makes it brighter and better-because realistically, Superman would completely change the world for the better, then they are using the "realism" trope correctly. So it does have value, but only if Superman makes a dark world brighter and man follows his example to a new Golden Age.

 

[KRIM]

If they do grimdark Superman with a cynical, Watchmen type world, then it is a mistake. If it is a dark and grim world and Superman's presence in it makes it brighter and better-because realistically, Superman would completely change the world for the better, then they are using the "realism" trope correctly. So it does have value, but only if Superman makes a dark world brighter and man follows his example to a new Golden Age.

It's something to develop towards, sure. What occurs before that, however, "realistically" would involve a world that is, at best, scared or belligerent to Superman's presence. It's not to say it would be as grim or dark as what you'd find in Batman or Watchmen. But it's fair to say the socio-political climate of today is unstable. I think it would be interesting to depict that world in conjunction with the world-altering revelation of alien life.

Realism can take on many definitions based upon the context it is placed. In terms of portraying characters, stories, and events in ways which closely mirror our own sensibilities -- then no, I've absolutely no issue with that at all. That has its place in all forms of fiction and is not dependent upon the believability of the narrative. In fact, it doesn't affect it at all.

 

[Motown Marvel]

the one word i didnt like hearing was 'dark'. everything else sounded really good to me.

and when they say "realism" in regards to superman, i'd think that would be comparable to how they generally approached Superman: The Movie. which, overall, i'd say was quite a real world superman.

 

[BH/HHH]

Recent interview with Zack:

[N]ewsweek: You are about to shoot new Superman with Christopher Nolan and his screenwriting collaborator David Goyer. Add your name and you've got our times hollywood dream team, much like Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan were back in the 80's.

nyder: I have to admit it is a project of my dreams and we have great expectations for it. Moreover, studio's and people's expectations are even higher. What Chris and David did to Batman was quite a revelation, so the bar is set pretty high.

N: I imagine you envision this bar in three dimensions...?

Z: Will "Superman: Man of Steel" be shot in 3D is a subject soon to be revealed. We are conducting certain experiment, which will determine the technology we'll be using.

N: Now you have to tell me more about this technology experiment! You just have to!

Z: Ok, but remember it's all in a testing phase. If it works, our "Superman" will blew Hollywood away. 3D is not James Cameron's invention, even though I'm sure he thinks otherwise. 3D movies were massively produced back in the 50's. However, visual effects were kinda modest at the time. So I came up with an idea, that Chris has found very interesting. I want to improve this old 3D technique and shoot our movie in 3D, but on a regular film reel. My visit to London interrupted this experiment for a while, but we are close to achieve what Cameron did in "Avatar" but without computers and digital cameras. I want my movie to look natural, to have this organic tape graininess. I don't want every shot to be color-corrected, digital cameras tend to lose focus. If we succeed, it will be the first professional 3D movie shot on regular cameras. And that will be total revolution.

N: Sound promising, but what about story? Do you want "Superman" in an old Richard Donner convention, the comedic Richard Lester version or maybe in this kiddish version, presented by Bryan Singer in "Superman Returns"?

Z: "Superman: Man of Steel" will be a whole new take on that superhero, and it will definitely not resemble Singer's movie, which I find extremely overstylized. My film is gonna be dark and realistic. There even was a moment, when we considered to give up all superpowers. But seriously, it's gonna be a solid, real action movie. Superman will be a real guy, evil will be tangible and Clark Kent will be working in an actual editorial office. These days nobody wants to see stories about plastic superheroes. Besides, why make them when somebody already did a long time ago. Comic book movies have entered a new era: they are unpredictable, epic and often realistic. My "Superman" will fit into these categories.

Love the dig at James Cameron he's clearly the most overrated director ever.

Also a sly dig at Tim Burton there joking about taking away Superman's powers? I think so

I really could care less if its in 3D I'll most likely watch it in 2D anyway

 

[Motown Marvel]

while i could care less about 3D, it at least sounds like he's trying to do it right, rather than just some cheap post-conversion.

 

[BH/HHH]

while i could care less about 3D, it at least sounds like he's trying to do it right, rather than just some cheap post-conversion.

Yeah I get the feeling that if they can't get the 3D right they will just abandon it.

 

[Kurosawa]

Love the dig at James Cameron he's clearly the most overrated director ever.

Also a sly dig at Tim Burton there joking about taking away Superman's powers? I think so

I really could care less if its in 3D I'll most likely watch it in 2D anyway

I'm not a huge Cameron fan but Snyder has never made anything on the level of Cameron's films. He comes off like a cocky child, and considering the fact that his last two pictures have bombed badly, he needs to do less trash talking and more filmmaking.

I could care less about 3D myself. If Superman is an emo punk who looks at his feet and hangs his head in shame while he runs to mommy and daddy for support instead of the confident patriarch he is supposed to be, the movie will suck no matter how great it looks.

 

[JAK®]

It's 'couldn't care less', people. If you could care less about 3D that means you are currently making an effort to care.

 

[Micromind]

It would be better if Snyder says something interesting without having to take shots at Cameron, Burton and Singer.

 

[Excel]

a needless shot at James Cameron when Snyder is only not in his class, he's not in the same campus.

yeah, idk what was up with that....

 

[Willi Berg]

It would be better if Snyder says something interesting without having to take shots at Cameron, Burton and Singer.

It was funny when Snyder said Singer's movie was "extremely overstylized"!

 

[matrix_ghost]

Recent interview with Zack:


N: I imagine you envision this bar in three dimensions...?

Z: Will "Superman: Man of Steel" be shot in 3D is a subject soon to be revealed. We are conducting certain experiment, which will determine the technology we'll be using.

N: Now you have to tell me more about this technology experiment! You just have to!

Z: Ok, but remember it's all in a testing phase. If it works, our "Superman" will blew Hollywood away. 3D is not James Cameron's invention, even though I'm sure he thinks otherwise. 3D movies were massively produced back in the 50's. However, visual effects were kinda modest at the time. So I came up with an idea, that Chris has found very interesting. I want to improve this old 3D technique and shoot our movie in 3D, but on a regular film reel. My visit to London interrupted this experiment for a while, but we are close to achieve what Cameron did in "Avatar" but without computers and digital cameras. I want my movie to look natural, to have this organic tape graininess. I don't want every shot to be color-corrected, digital cameras tend to lose focus. If we succeed, it will be the first professional 3D movie shot on regular cameras. And that will be total revolution.

Very interested to see this.
Who know , maybe nolan might convert to 3-d after all.
Let's face it , there are many directors out there who still prefer to shoot stuff on film. Although i'm certainly a fan of digital and i also know that digital cameras as making huge progresses , fact is that there are still limitations .
If anyone has a chance to read the cinefex issue feat. Sucker Punch , you'll see why Snyder chose to shoot the movie on film even though digital cameras were considered.

Edit : Going back to the topic. I'm curious if they can apply this experiment to IMAX cmaeras

 

[SuperDaniel]

Kurosawa and others totally misunderstood Zack's quote.

He means that the environment is going to be realistic. Superman's powers are going to work under the laws of physic and all. That means, no flying with Lois and hes just holding her by the hand only. Realism means verosimilitude. The same concept Nolan applied for Batman. What would happen if Superman and aliens appeared in our world today? That's what he means. Its pretty obvious by all his interviews that he meant that.

Our world today is dark and grim and Superman is going to work under that. As he is going to be a beacon in this world, after all, this is what Superman is all about.

CHILL GUYS!

 

[Herolee10]

Kurosawa and others totally misunderstood Zack's quote.

He means that the environment is going to be realistic. Superman's powers are going to work under the laws of physic and all. That means, no flying with Lois and hes just holding her by the hand only. Realism means verosimilitude. The same concept Nolan applied for Batman. What would happen if Superman and aliens appeared in our world today? That's what he means. Its pretty obvious by all his interviews that he meant that.

Our world today is dark and grim and Superman is going to work under that. As he is going to be a beacon in this world, after all, this is what Superman is all about.

CHILL GUYS!

Well since you're talking about Realism, I actually wonder if they'll give somewhat of a decent explanation as to why no one recognizes Clark as Superman due to him just simply wearing a normal pair of glasses?