Christopher Nolan Meeting With Directorial Candidates

[Brother Jack]

On the subject of age, Harrison Ford was exactly the age Jon Hamm is now when he did Raiders.

That's a really good point. If they're going with "seasoned" Clark, i.e. not a young beginner, then I don't see why John Hamm wouldn't be a great choice.

 

[Kurosawa]

I don't think anyone is suggesting Hamm's age disqualifies him from being an action movie leading man. It may disqualify him from playing a man in the prime of his life and beginning a career as a costumed hero.

But haven't they said that the movie may be well into Superman's career and not an origin story?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Superman was badly depowered way before JLA under Timm. He was rarely impressive. Meanwhile Batman continued to be a god of course. And it is more a business decision to downgrade and humiliate Superman because they don't have his rights completely under financial control.

You cant believe that. Superman is their second best property behind batman (in sales i mean), so why would they do that to him? It would be like shooting themselves in the foot to hit them. Also, look up the new DTV called Superman-Shazam. Its basically a Captain Marvel story, but they re throwing in Superman to draw the masses.

They clearly want Superman to be awesome. They re counting on it.

As for STAS, clearly everyone in there was depowered so that they could work the fight scenes. You might as well been a New Gods fans and told me that they re out to get Darkseid by making him slow and only as powerful as Superman, with omega beams that are less powefull and escapable.

Evolution and deconstruction are two completely different things. If Superman is made the exact opposite of what he is intended to be, then he is NO LONGER SUPERMAN.

But is he really the exact opposite of what he was intended to be, or just richer in his characterization?

He's not that well respected in the comics and I've always found the Jesus motif absurd when you consider he was created by Jewish guys. It's a bad fit and hurts the character.

Its just the metaphor i used. Besides, Superman doesnt intend to die for our sins, so if anything he is more like the messiah of the jews, someone to kick the Romans' asses and liberate them.
But DC has made him a Jesus of sorts as well in that he is very benevolent, full of compassion and humility.

And Batman should have never hated Kal-El, he should have always been impressed and indeed awed by him. Superman shouldn't have to win detractors over. As soon as you start having people taking a character apart it is hard to get them back together.

Of course. Everyone must love your favourite character, otherwise they re taking him apart. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What you want is a Mary Sue, not a real character.

And anyway, Batman only disliked him at first. They re bros now!

And "Grounded" is garbage, albeit well intentioned garbage. JMS is not good enough to write Superman.

Let me correct you: Grounded is ******ed. t: I just wanted to show you that Superman is huge in the DCU, and his (although stupid) decision to walk the US is a big deal.

.....Man, you do not understand Superman at ALL. His father was the greatest scientist on a planet of geniuses. Superman should naturally be a brilliant scientist. Do you know why, when Superman was relevant, Luthor could never beat him? Planet moving powers? NO. It was because he consistently underestimated Superman's own intelligence. Of course Superman should be a genius and should be a thinking man's character.

In All-Star Morrison played it exactly like that. The thing is that Superman has too many powers to be a hax scientist, genius, etc as well. When he started he was the only character DC had. Now there are millions of them and one cannot have all the best traits to himself. Besides, how can Lex compete when Superman = Lex + 1000 superpowers? That is why they have downplayed the scientist/genius part. He is still smart though.

Also, just because your father is a genius, it doesnt mean that you are too.

Superman's charming cockiness where he gets a laugh out of seeing corrupt exploiters put in their place and the flat

Charming? Not really. And like i said, DC has many guys like that out there (Hal for example) so they ve taken Superman to a different place. If someone in the DCU was going to be the benevolent white knight that everyone looked up to, shouldnt it be DC's best hero? Besides, if you take into account his humble origin, it really makes sense.

No, since day one, which was in 1938 NOT 1986 (John Byrne did not create Superman), his parents have been dead, dead when Krypton exploded and his adoptive parents died when he reached manhood. That is the original legend, and it is based deeply in Siegel's own personal life where his father was killed and his mother became distant from him. Ivan Turgenev once said "A boy doesn't become a man until he loses his father." Now I don't know if that applies to real life but too many people confuse actual people with the literary constructs known as "characters" and for characters and heroic characters in particular, it is a standard for them to be on their own. It's done for a reason. Superman was better off when his parents died as he reached adulthood and his powers-planet moving God level at the time-could not save them.

Things like that happen. For example sometimes they give Bruce a ******ed brother, sometimes they take him out of canon. These things change from time to time to explore new ideas.

Anyway it would be nice if one hero out there didnt have DEAD PARENTS and they were actually part of his life. You'll say "yeah, but do that to someone else. Superman was like that forever." OK, but for better or for worse its almost 30 years now and we have come to associate Superman with family and heartwarming feelings.

If you knew anything about Batman, you would understand that a huge part of his success is because in the 70's DC went back to his roots and took the character back to the standards that made him popular in the first place. Superman has moved away from his creators intentions and the more he has moved away from it the less popular and relevant he has become.

I think that the campy era was fairly successful as well, and Adam West was a cultural phenomenon.
Also, creators intentions arent infallible, or the route to ultimate success. Everything can be improved upon. And even if a certain character was successful in the 40ies, it doesnt mean that the same ingredients will work in the audience of 2010.

Thankfully many of these similar changes to Superman have been undone but the farmer boy establishment stooge and mindless optimist still taint the character and have got to go. He's got to be written as an adult again.

I dont consider the goodness of his heart to be boyish or foolish. Besides, DC has given him the top stop, naming him the "man of tomorrow". He is the man we aspire to be in our future, the man of a future, more socially advanced society. What's greater than that? Being a dick to people who deserve it? Big whoop.

And he defends his ideas like a man. I dont see where you re coming from, but then again you just said "someone (batman) doesnt like Superman, that means the character is ruined!"

Well, so much for that. Let's bring on Supes being a bad ass and people looking at him with awe as he helps the common man against greedy *****es like Lexcorp, shall we?

Corporate *****es? He is also a scientist and one of the brightest minds in the DCU. He's even become the President.

You really prefer the Lex of the olden days? WOW!

 

[Mr. Earle]

One, that is disgusting and insulting. And two, the character is NOT better.

Let's see: original Supes: confident adult, champion of the common man vs the establishment.

Post-Crisis Supes: unsure man-child, servant to the establishment, does whatever he is told.

Not an improvement and a huge part of the problem. It's not hard to see why so many people look at Superman as a putz when you see what he's been degraded to.

You mean like that time he went against the President? (Public Enemies)
Like that time he went against the goverment? (Cadmus story in JLU)

I'm sure there are more stories that prove you wrong. Also, Superman is the leader of the Justice League, so you re making stuff up man.

 

[Octoberist]

mew mew mew

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I don't believe that Superman was ever controlled by the establishment. That's not the point.

The main point is that I'm tired of him being written as constantly getting shown up by Batman in team ups when he should be as imposing a character as Batman.

What is it with you guys and Siegel and Shuster? Are they your ancestors or something? If the character is better, then i really dont care about what they wanted. I piss on their graves!

 

[HighFivingMF]

mew mew mew

Spoiler

 

[Aesop Rocks]

 

[truth]

Jim Caviezel.

You realise the rights are leaving WB (thankfully!) by 2013? So no sequel talk. They need to make money from a big time film.

ROUTH = HELL NO!

HAMM = THANKS, BUT NO THANKS!

Go with the best actor. Of all the names, Caviezel is the best actor who can actually...emote...has range...has PROPER film credits

 

[HighFivingMF]

Jim Caviezel.

You realise the rights are leaving WB (thankfully!) by 2013?

Thankfully?

 

[truth]

Superman is the most boring character next to Captain America.

It was only because of Donner and Reeve that the world outside White America, gave a damn about him.

You realize, Donner is still alive. In case some have forgotten

 

[truth]

Thankfully?

Who gave Superman to Singer?

Who was the studio that sat back and financed Singerman Returns?

What was the studio that got Donner fired?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Superman is the most boring character next to Captain America.

It was only because of Donner and Reeve that the world outside White America, gave a damn about him.

You realize, Donner is still alive. In case some have forgotten

1. You're full of s**t.
2. If you hate Superman why are you in a Superman thread?
3. Captain America ain't boring.

[YT]MNS9MzGOQtU[/YT]

 

[The Batman]

See, the thing is, Kuro is right about one thing: Modern day Superman isnt really the original superman. He isnt.

You can like the idea that Clark Kent is as real to Supes as Peter Parker is to Spider-Man. But what fans dont seem to understand is that it goes against the core of Superman. Superman cant do things like Spider-Man, because Spider-Man is the anti-Superman. To be like a marvel character goes against the core idea of Superman, which is why Brynes ideas havent stuck.

You can like post crisis supes all you want, but its not an evolution of the character so much as a reimagining that did away with the core of the character. I think its very telling that the most well regarded versions of Superman (Donner, All Star, etc) arent afraid to admit that, yes, clark kent is largely disguise, and that yes, superman is insanely powerful, ideas from "Classic Superman" . Meanwhile, the so called "evolution" of post crisis supes has seen the character fall from his once great standing, and in the comics, most of post crisis has been changed or thrown out.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Superman is the most boring character next to Captain America.

It was only because of Donner and Reeve that the world outside White America, gave a damn about him.

You realize, Donner is still alive. In case some have forgotten

2 words: Superman Returns. Donner's Superman has not aged well. Also this:

1. You're full of s**t.
2. If you hate Superman why are you in a Superman thread?
3. Captain America ain't boring.

[YT]MNS9MzGOQtU[/YT]

 

[HighFivingMF]

Who gave Superman to Singer?

Who was the studio that sat back and financed Singerman Returns?

What was the studio that got Donner fired?

Who rephrased their first point to make their second point?

The Salkinds fired Donner, not WB.

So the company doesn't deserve the rights to the character based on a character from a comic book company they own because they trusted the guy who basically kickstarted the new superhero craze? Superman Returns wasn't the ugly ginger stepkid of superhero movies some folks around these parts make it out to be, quite a few people actually liked it. It has a 76% on RottenTomatoes.

 

[Octoberist]

So 'Truth' comes in, insults both Superman and Captain America as characters and said 'thankfully' that Superman is leaving WB in 2013.

It's so incredibly ill-informed and 'jumping-to-conclusions' as it gets.

'Truth' only has 63 posts and signed on in August 2010, right, so it's weird how incrediblely outspoken he is, that makes me think (or jump to the conclusion) that he/she is someone who is really, really familiar with the boards..under a different (possibly banned) name, as it were.

 

[Mr. Earle]

See, the thing is, Kuro is right about one thing: Modern day Superman isnt really the original superman. He isnt.

You can like the idea that Clark Kent is as real to Supes as Peter Parker is to Spider-Man. But what fans dont seem to understand is that it goes against the core of Superman. Superman cant do things like Spider-Man, because Spider-Man is the anti-Superman. To be like a marvel character goes against the core idea of Superman, which is why Brynes ideas havent stuck.

Where does Spiderman fit in all of this?

As for who is the real person, Morrison said that there are two Clarks, the one we see with his family and the clumsy, shy, etc dude he pretends to be in the Daily Planet to throw off suspicion. The thing is that Morrison thinks that Lois could never fall for that Clark and that is one of the reasons that she didnt want to believe that he is Superman when he told her the truth in AS-S. And he's right you know. Clark needs to be less of an idiot in order for Lois to get over her infatuation with Superman and fall in love with him. I'm not saying he should be badass, but he shouldnt be an idiot either.

Meanwhile, the so called "evolution" of post crisis supes has seen the character fall from his once great standing, and in the comics, most of post crisis has been changed or thrown out.

All that matrix stuff doesnt matter anyway. I mean it does, but it doesnt define him. His basic characterization and place in the DCU hasnt changed.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Who gave Superman to Singer?

Who was the studio that sat back and financed Singerman Returns?

What was the studio that got Donner fired?

Hey man, mistakes happen. Its the same studio that hired Schumacher and then Nolan.

So 'Truth' comes in, insults both Superman and Captain America as characters and said 'thankfully' that Superman is leaving WB in 2013.

It's so incredibly ill-informed and 'jumping-to-conclusions' as it gets.

'Truth' only has 63 posts and signed on in August 2010, right, so it's weird how incrediblely outspoken he is, that makes me think (or jump to the conclusion) that he/she is someone who is really, really familiar with the boards..under a different (possibly banned) name, as it were.

A troll probably.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

2 words: Superman Returns. Donner's Superman has not aged well. Also this:

 

[Octoberist]

BUT..Let's not disregard Donner's Superman. It's also a product of its time, so you can't completely watch it from a modernist point of view. This is THE movie that started it all. It's like saying that Wizard of Oz looks 'cheap and stupid' to today's movies.

I think Superman hasn't been able to take it to a new level, especially with Superman Returns, which just stuck with the same creative mindset as the Donner's movies. But the problem is that, it's a little outdated and creatively limited.

That's why the new movie needs to show the world why Superman is relevent and why he's an icon. That he's the symbol of hope. And you need a strong villain that will oppose that ideal.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm just tired of self-doubting Superman. I want a very confident Superman. You can make a great Superman film without having him doubt his morals all the time.

 

[The Batman]

Where does Spiderman fit in all of this?

As for who is the real person, Morrison said that there are two Clarks, the one we see with his family and the clumsy, shy, etc dude he pretends to be in the Daily Planet to throw off suspicion. The thing is that Morrison thinks that Lois could never fall for that Clark and that is one of the reasons that she didnt want to believe that he is Superman when he told her the truth in AS-S. And he's right you know. Clark needs to be less of an idiot in order for Lois to get over her infatuation with Superman and fall in love with him. I'm not saying he should be badass, but he shouldnt be an idiot either.
All that matrix stuff doesnt matter anyway. I mean it does, but it doesnt define him. His basic characterization and place in the DCU hasnt changed.

Post Crisis Superman was given a lot of the traits spider-man/marvel characters were known for....like emphasis on the secret identity being the most important one and soap opera style storytelling.

And if I were talking about Morrison's Superman, there wouldnt even be an argument. Morrison's All Star Supes is not the current DCU character, which is still about Clark being the true self above all.

Its a given thast his "basic" characterization hasnt changed....but that dosent mean the current characterization is somehow good. Batman has always had the same basic characterization, and he still had crappy writing. Superman's head cheese in name only. Hes barely in the large company crossovers, and the hero that rallies the troops is Alan Scott most of the time. Superman today is just there.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm just tired of self-doubting Superman. I want a very confident Superman. You can make a great Superman film without having him doubt his morals all the time.

I think you can have a self-doubting Superman, but that shouldn't be the..the spine of the narrative.

You're right, one of the aspects of Superman is that he's a confident guy. That was one of my problems with Singer's interpretation: I think he went too far into the deep end & it ultimately neglects the other aspects that makes Superman..Superman.

 

[Kurosawa]

You cant believe that. Superman is their second best property behind batman (in sales i mean), so why would they do that to him? It would be like shooting themselves in the foot to hit them. Also, look up the new DTV called Superman-Shazam. Its basically a Captain Marvel story, but they re throwing in Superman to draw the masses.

They limit how strong they make Superman as a character because of the financial situation. It's not a bad business decision but it's a terrible creative one. They put Superman in the Captain Marvel DTV because they have no confidence in their other characters and they treat the Marvels even worse than they do Superman.

They clearly want Superman to be awesome. They re counting on it.

As for STAS, clearly everyone in there was depowered so that they could work the fight scenes. You might as well been a New Gods fans and told me that they re out to get Darkseid by making him slow and only as powerful as Superman, with omega beams that are less powefull and escapable.But is he really the exact opposite of what he was intended to be, or just richer in his characterization?

As I said, their Superman was always unimpressive not just on JLA. He got consistently knocked out by electrical shocks for crying out loud.

Its just the metaphor i used. Besides, Superman doesnt intend to die for our sins, so if anything he is more like the messiah of the jews, someone to kick the Romans' asses and liberate them.
But DC has made him a Jesus of sorts as well in that he is very benevolent, full of compassion and humility.

Superman was always that. Where they have messed up is they have mistook his compassion, care and decency for extreme naivete. The seem to equate positivity and optimism with blind cheerfulness.

Of course. Everyone must love your favourite character, otherwise they re taking him apart. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What
you want is a Mary Sue, not a real character.

1) You don't know what a Mary Sue is.
2) You never read comics when Superman was the most respected and beloved hero in the DCU and even Batman looked up to him. So I can't expect you to understand a time and a culture that you never experienced and never read.

And anyway, Batman only disliked him at first. They re bros now!
Let me correct you: Grounded is ******ed. t: I just wanted to show you that Superman is huge in the DCU, and his (although stupid) decision to walk the US is a big deal.
In All-Star Morrison played it exactly like that. The thing is that Superman has too many powers to be a hax scientist, genius, etc as well. When he started he was the only character DC had. Now there are millions of them and one cannot have all the best traits to himself. Besides, how can Lex compete when Superman = Lex + 1000 superpowers? That is why they have downplayed the scientist/genius part. He is still smart though.

Once again: Superman should not have to win Batman over. If anything, it should be the opposite. And yeah, Morrison did play that part right. The main thing is they usually write Superman as a dim bulb. He doesn't have be Reed Richards but too often they write him as a complete idiot.

Also, just because your father is a genius, it doesnt mean that you are too.
Charming? Not really. And like i said, DC has many guys like that out there (Hal for example) so they ve taken Superman to a different place. If someone in the DCU was going to be the benevolent white knight that everyone looked up to, shouldnt it be DC's best hero? Besides, if you take into account his humble origin, it really makes sense.
Things like that happen. For example sometimes they give Bruce a ******ed brother, sometimes they take him out of canon. These things change from time to time to explore new ideas.

All Kryptonians are near genius level intellect by Earth standards. Hence the "My son is 5 and doesn't know his calculus yet" line. And the place they've taken Superman to is a place that makes him look like a naive little fool. And Superman's origin is more epic and tragic than humble. Clark himself is humble by design, not because rural farmers are humble or some sort of group to be looked on with pity.

Anyway it would be nice if one hero out there didnt have DEAD PARENTS and they were actually part of his life. You'll say "yeah, but do that to someone else. Superman was like that forever." OK, but for better or for worse its almost 30 years now and we have come to associate Superman with family and heartwarming feelings.

All of which has kept him an eternal child and a loser. Why should the original hero have to change? Change the guys who came after him. They can start by fixing Barry Allen's past, his parents are supposed to be alive.

I think that the campy era was fairly successful as well, and Adam West was a cultural phenomenon.
Also, creators intentions arent infallible, or the route to ultimate success. Everything can be improved upon. And even if a certain character was successful in the 40ies, it doesnt mean that the same ingredients will work in the audience of 2010.

It was successful for 3 years, then Batman was once again on the verge of cancellation. And if something like Superman succeeded for almost 50 years due to the way it was sat up, then was changed and failed mostly for the next 25 years-which is what has happened-then a "back to the basics" approach is what works. And not every element from the 40's still works but the basic ones do and those are the ones they kept from the 30's until the 80's. Superman as an ADULT. Clark as a nebbish. His beginnings as tragic, his life dedicated to others. His selflessness. The feelings of loneliness he had, and the lost world he can never save. Jettison all of that and you have a pretty bland character with no soul or pathos. It's just not compelling.

I dont consider the goodness of his heart to be boyish or foolish. Besides, DC has given him the top stop, naming him the "man of tomorrow". He is the man we aspire to be in our future, the man of a future, more socially advanced society. What's greater than that? Being a dick to people who deserve it? Big whoop.

And he defends his ideas like a man. I dont see where you re coming from, but then again you just said "someone (batman) doesnt like Superman, that means the character is ruined!"
Corporate *****es? He is also a scientist and one of the brightest minds in the DCU. He's even become the President.

They talk the talk, but then in the stories the character is consistently ineffective. Look at the New Krypton/War of the Superman mess where all he does is fail and fail. He's become a loser and people don't like losers unless they overcome it somehow.

You really prefer the Lex of the olden days? WOW!

You don't even know anything about the Bronze Age Lex except for what you've been told. But it's too late to educate you now because you're holding on to that "one dimensional mad scientist" crock that the DC propaganda machine fed people for years. Lex is a million time more interesting as the fallen friend whose potential for greatness is stifled due to his obsession with Superman. He could surpass Superman if he wasn't held back by pride and that wouldn't bother Superman one iota as long as the people reaped the rewards.

You mean like that time he went against the President? (Public Enemies)
Like that time he went against the goverment? (Cadmus story in JLU)

I'm sure there are more stories that prove you wrong. Also, Superman is the leader of the Justice League, so you re making stuff up man.

Or that time he was a total toad in DKR which is about a million times better known a story? And yeah, I made it up where he totally failed all those times and got owned. Sure. I broke into DC's offices and filed those stories personally actually. Regardless, the public at large sees Superman as an establishment stooge and this movie would be a great chance to break that false and wrong perception.