David Goyer hired to write Man of Steel

[Octoberist]

at this point, we can just see Superman Returns as a conclusion of the Donner era films. it's kinda weird that maybe 20 years from now, film historians will be baffled by it. Is it a sequel, is it a reboot, what is it?

It's gonna be like that weird James Bond film Never Say Never Again, which was competing against the real James Bond film Octopussy.

 

[Octoberist]

at this point, we can just see Superman Returns as a conclusion of the Donner era films. it's kinda weird that maybe 20 years from now, film historians will be baffled by it. Was a sequel? Was it a reboot? What the hell was it?

It was an anomaly, i guess.

It's gonna be like how view that James Bond film, Never Say Never Again, which was competing against the real James Bond film Octopussy.
(Some may say "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and what happened to that, but people liked that one.)

 

[craigdbfan]

at this point, we can just see Superman Returns as a conclusion of the Donner era films.

Thats how I see it.

 

[SuperDaniel]

LOL actually I'm not. I'm a WASPy guy from the south. If we were arguing over Cap or WW or any other character I would have the same stance. I believe strongly in respecting the intentions and fairly compensating the original creators of comics characters. It's just my opinion that they took Superman too far from who he was before, and that they didn't do that with WW or Batman. They changed WW a LOT more than they did Supes, but I felt it was closer to the spirit of the WMM/Peter original. Not that Post-Crisis Supes is a terrible guy, just that he has a lot less depth and pathos to me, and I didn't like how they handled Clark as much. Later creators like Jurgens, Stern, etc did a lot better job with that take on Superman than Byrne did and it got really good after awhile. Plus that character is gone now, just like the Earth-One Supes is...the current Superman is much more of a mix of all the characters traits, hopefully the movie will do that too.

You know, I actually agree with you. My favorite post-crisis times was the times between Exile on space and Death of Superman when Jurgens, Bogdanove and Grummett were drawing supes.

 

[SpiderByte]

Point being: A lot of us like Superman the way he is now. He's even more heroic, and he is still one of the most loved heroes of all time.

On the film point, I think that the best way they could get Superman to fit into Batman's universe is for it to be written sort of like the way they did Smallville. It explains a lot of things, and it would be a great way to connect the two together, since Smallville is sort of like a Nolanish Superman: It takes an approach that makes sense and is awesome.

 

[Mr. Earle]

The reason you don't see these kinds of conversations among Batman fans is THEY DIDN'T TAKE BATMAN AWAY FROM HIS ROOTS AND HIS CORE. There is no Pre-Crisis/Post-Crisis schism among Batman fans.

Even so, when someone suggests something radical for the character, no one is yelling "you re raping Bob Kane's corpse".

Going away from the core is what led to his decline in the first place.

I think the decline came long before that. Not that i think that they strayed from the core...
Like i've said 1000 times by now, it depends a lot on what stories they write with the characters, not on whether Clark was a jock in high school or a laughing stock.

 

[X Knight]

I can't deny that it is probably going to be a little tough to change people's perceptions of the charcter.

There has to be a perfect balance of bringing in new non-fans and not spitting in the faces of people who liked old Superman.

And Again, Star Trek did this. Most people liked Star Trek and felt that it kept the feeling of old Trek while updating it for new people...people who actually hated Trek.

Hell, I don't care for James Bond flicks but I dug Casino Royale. To bad the follow up was lame.

My neice and nephews don't know s**t about the original Trek T.V series and they loved JJ abrams flick.

Superman can be saved but the next movie is going to have to take some risks.

It was a risk to use that convoluted and not entirely sensible Time Travel plot

It was a risk to cast not only an unknown lead but little known co-stars

It was a risk to completely change the interier of the Ship

It was a risk making making Spock and Uhura a couple

Yes Superman Returns risked something by making Superman have a kid and that was an um...interesting risk but they also made Superman seem like an A-hole in the process by making him have unprotected sex with Lois then running off without telling her where he was going. That risk was f**ked up when the writers made Superman do that. So I want well thoughtout good risks.

Actually, I felt the same way about Star Trek.

I've always been more of a Star Wars fan ( and still am ), so I knew very little about the whole Star Trek universe, other than basic common knowledge.

But, I really enjoyed the new Star Trek film. True, the whole time-space-alternate reality thingy confused me a bit.........but I felt they did a good job in taking a classic, iconic franchise and reintroducing it to a new generation of fans.

And, I felt that was what they should have done with SR, and what they need to do with the next Superman film.

 

[Webhead2006]

i agree to octoberist, SR will probably now be officially the close to donner, while this next one will finally be a different and new incarnation for the characters.

 

[Bad Superman]

i agree to octoberist, SR will probably now be officially the close to donner, while this next one will finally be a different and new incarnation for the characters.

That's exactly how I feel about SR. To me it was the final chapter of the Donner Superman franchise.

 

[BH/HHH]

That's exactly how I feel about SR. To me it was the final chapter of the Donner Superman franchise.

Thats exactly what I think, a final chapter in the donnerverse. One things for sure you will never see a movie like it again in my opinion.

 

[Webhead2006]

i so hope it will be. As i said sure i love donner's superman. But times have changed and the character has changed. So that take just doesnt really cut it any more. Its time to have a new and different take on superman be the defining superman for this coming generation.

 

[Kurosawa]

oh that's easy, and mind you i like both characters.

Spider-Man, to me, was like kinda a 60s (or modern at the time) take on Superman. He was a kid from the working class who had to juggle his superhero duties with real life (girls, school, work, etc). In many ways, Marvel decontructed the superhero genre back then, giving these heroes some real life problems.

that's why Spider-Man still conncets with the audience today. I think he's more of a real American than Superman (in some ways) where as Superman is like the ideal American. Peter has struggles besides being Spider-Man.

It's not that Superman is boring. I think it's his simplicity that makes him great. But he also an easy character to screw up.

That's why I feel taking out all semblance of loss and tragedy hurt Superman badly.

You know, I actually agree with you. My favorite post-crisis times was the times between Exile on space and Death of Superman when Jurgens, Bogdanove and Grummett were drawing supes.

I liked that stuff and most of Stern's stuff as well. Those were much closer to what Superman should be. I know technically it's the same character as Byrne's version, but to me it was light years better. Unfortunately it had the stench of all Byrne had done tainting it. Still good stuff though.

Point being: A lot of us like Superman the way he is now. He's even more heroic, and he is still one of the most loved heroes of all time.

On the film point, I think that the best way they could get Superman to fit into Batman's universe is for it to be written sort of like the way they did Smallville. It explains a lot of things, and it would be a great way to connect the two together, since Smallville is sort of like a Nolanish Superman: It takes an approach that makes sense and is awesome.

The current Superman MIGHT be AS heroic as the Earth-One version, but Byrne's version was not and that is part of why they retconned it away.

Even so, when someone suggests something radical for the character, no one is yelling "you re raping Bob Kane's corpse".
I think the decline came long before that. Not that i think that they strayed from the core...
Like i've said 1000 times by now, it depends a lot on what stories they write with the characters, not on whether Clark was a jock in high school or a laughing stock.

They've never took Batman that far from his core, however. Just because they might put him through some messed up stuff doesn't change who he is and who he has always been. I think Johns is getting Superman back to where he should be now.

 

[SpiderByte]

Can we all just agree to disagree?

 

[Lead Cenobite]

oh that's easy, and mind you i like both characters.

Spider-Man, to me, was like kinda a 60s (or modern at the time) take on Superman. He was a kid from the working class who had to juggle his superhero duties with real life (girls, school, work, etc). In many ways, Marvel decontructed the superhero genre back then, giving these heroes some real life problems.

that's why Spider-Man still conncets with the audience today. I think he's more of a real American than Superman (in some ways) where as Superman is like the ideal American. Peter has struggles besides being Spider-Man.

It's not that Superman is boring. I think it's his simplicity that makes him great. But he also an easy character to screw up.

I was really commenting on the idea that Superman isn't cool enough for modern audiences, not his relatability. My argument is Spider-Man, especially the one in the Raimi films, doesn't fit the traditional definition of cool, and yet they were still hits.

 

[Octoberist]

I was really commenting on the idea that Superman isn't cool enough for modern audiences, not his relatability. My argument is Spider-Man, especially the one in the Raimi films, doesn't fit the traditional definition of cool, and yet they were still hits.

you were asking me why is Spider-Man is considered 'cool' when he's as goofy as Superman, right?

and I think, in the end of the day, being 'cool' as to do with anything. it has to deal if a certain charcter can strike a chord with an audience, and Spider-Man did.

Spider-Man clicked because he was the 'everyday man' that the average folk can buy into.

Plus, Peter was a kid, and most comic book fans back then were kids. It was "image if I was in his shoes' since he's probably in the same bracket as the audience. and it still figures today with the modern audience.

That's why Spider-Man transcend one generation to the next.

BTW, all comic book characters are goofy one way or another. some are more optimistic than others. some are darker. It just has to work and in order to make it work is good writing. 'Cool' is entirely subjective.

 

[Kurosawa]

What I think is the main reason Byrne's version got retconned and the real damning thing about it:

 

[Kurosawa]

What I think is the main reason Byrne's version got retconned and the real damning thing about it:

This is one part of his run I expect them to not use.

 

[Mr. Earle]

What is that?

 

[Orin]

you were asking me why is Spider-Man is considered 'cool' when he's as goofy as Superman, right?

and I think, in the end of the day, being 'cool' as to do with anything. it has to deal if a certain charcter can strike a chord with an audience, and Spider-Man did.

Spider-Man clicked because he was the 'everyday man' that the average folk can buy into.

Plus, Peter was a kid, and most comic book fans back then were kids. It was "image if I was in his shoes' since he's probably in the same bracket as the audience. and it still figures today with the modern audience.

That's why Spider-Man transcend one generation to the next.

BTW, all comic book characters are goofy one way or another. some are more optimistic than others. some are darker. It just has to work and in order to make it work is good writing. 'Cool' is entirely subjective.

I think that's the key right there. In the end, to some degree it always comes down to if a character is relatable or not. Big action scenes mean nothing if people don't care for the characters fighting or if there's no deeper reason for why they fight.

Superman may not seem like he's dealing with this every day problems the way Peter Parker does, but actually he is. It's just not that obvious because the issues Superman faces are metaphors for real life stuff. But in it's core the concept is always about basic conflicts everyone knows and can relate to. It's how Superman handles being this superpowered Last Survivor of a now dead world, not the fact that he can do all of these things, that makes. I think Marc Guggenheim said it well, when he descriped the appeal of Superman, what makes him human, the sort of feeling like being the only one who is a certain way, something everyone should be able to relate to in one way or another.

And from my perspective John Byrne's reboot put some more focus on, which appealed to the mature audiance the majority pf Comic Book fans had become by the time. So if you ask me it would be a very good idea to go with that for the reboot. Cause him appearing to be not relatable enough has alway been one of the problems alot of people have with the character.

 

[SpiderByte]

What I think is the main reason Byrne's version got retconned and the real damning thing about it:

This is one part of his run I expect them to not use.

....

You don't expect Kryptonite?

 

[Kal-El Fan]

....

You don't expect Kryptonite?

I believe he doesn't expect the execution of the Phantom Zone villains.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

What I think is the main reason Byrne's version got retconned and the real damning thing about it:

This is one part of his run I expect them to not use.

I've researched Superman #22 (never read it). It's important to know that Zod, Quex-Ul, and Zaora exterminated the entire human population of earth in a pocket universe; so obviously there weren't any officials around to see that justice was done.

"What I must now do is harder than anything I have ever done before. But as the last representative of law and justice on this world, it falls to me to act as judge, jury ... and executioner."

And the Phantom Zone wasn't exactly available to him at that time. Afterward he is very disturbed by what he had to do.

One of the main reasons Superman and Batman are so averted to killing is that it isn't their job. They hold life sacred while realizing that in most cases their only job is to apprehend these criminals. Well, in this specific situation, it fell on Superman's shoulders, and it was the only option.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Is that Superman killing the PZ prisoners?

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Yes.

 

[Mr. Earle]

But.... WHAT THE HELL MAN?