Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Upcoming Superman Solo Movie' started by Thread Manager, Mar 22, 2018.
I think that may be part of the reason why they're hot for Supergirl now.
Superman has already had six solo films aswell as BVS and JL, on top of multiple live action tv shows, other than Batman no superhero has had more exposure.
While I do want to see MOS2 soon, I understand WB focusing on giving other characters their first solo film rather than on giving Superman his seventh.
I think the issue is that some fans don't feel he's really gotten his due on the big screen in regards to the villains. He has an entire gallery that has basically been delegated to Luthor, Doomsday, and technically Steppenwolf and a couple made up baddies.
Rereading Cavill's interview from Square Mile magazine you can clearly see Henry wants another opportunity. "There's an opportunity to keep on telling Superman stories and getting them exactly right. Showing the things like hope and joy and that wonderful power of his to make people believe in themselves." The article theorizes by stating, "If Man of Steel 2 never materials, perhaps Cavill can produce it himself."
Who should play Kara Zor El/Supergirl
henry cavill wearing a blonde wig
Superman Fatigue. He has had so many movies and so many TV series, with none of them really being a continuation of the other, that to then hear about yet another reboot (more than likely) that it just flows like water off a duck's back.
I would have much rather preferred that they had stayed with the Superman Reborn story line, even if they had to get a new actor for the role. At least that would be a continuation, especially as SR was almost a direct sequel to Superman II.
Don't get me wrong, I liked MoS and was okay with Snyder altering the origin, but its reviews were already mixed, and to then follow it up by controversial sequels, that's like they finally broke a wheel that was already cracked.
Maybe just slightly shifting the focus to another Kryptonian is what Superman needs. Instead of a mental groan about another Superman movie (in-line with a series of movies that have stumbled more than soared) the potential of finally getting a good Supergirl movie would spark more interest. She's had a lot less coverage than her more high profile cousin over the years, and I'd wonder if CW Supergirl is the true one currently carrying the torch for Krypton.
Couple that with a push for more superheroine movies, given a giant shove by WW's success and (I would hope) another home run with WW84, as well as Capt. Marvel, and it may be better to go with the flow at the moment.
Give Superman a little rest and time to percolate, focus on movie-verse Kara and hope they get a success out of it. And as the good vibes are gushing over a triumvirate of female superhero movies, they can move forward with Superman again, either as a continuation of Cavil's supes who would have hopefully played a role in Supergirl as well, or as yet another reboot (I hope not.)
Supergirl certainly doesnt have the baggage of a prior beloved film interpretation, but I fear that WB still wont know what to do with her because WB cant seem to understand that characters should be made true to who they are, rather than fit into the mold of dark and edgy or light and comical. That WB still doesnt get the appeal of Superman doesnt leave me too excited for how they seek to do Supergirl.
Still hot af I bet
Cavill's Superman was not dark and edgy. He was quiet, introspective, and occasionally lonely or melancholic. The appeal of Superman to me has everything to do with the example he provides for how to navigate the difficulties of the world with wisdom, humility, patience, and grace. He's a hero because even when all the world seems dark and filled with nightmares, including his own, he still chooses love. He chooses mercy and forgiveness. He chooses faith and sacrifice. He protects and saves his enemies along with those he loves.
Since Man of Steel reminded me so much of Malick's The Tree of Life, this quote from the film always seems fitting:
Grace doesn't try to please itself. Accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked. Accepts insults and injuries. Nature only wants to please itself. Get others to please it too. Likes to lord it over them. To have its own way. It finds reasons to be unhappy...when all the world is shining around it...when love is smiling through all things.
Snyder's Superman does exist in a world with light and dark: the push and pull between nature and grace. Superman is slighted and disliked by those who seek only to please themselves or have their own way. But he has hope because he is able, particularly during his darkest moments, to see how love smiles through all things. He forgives the slights of those like Pete, Hardy, Swanwick, and Bruce who are driven by Nature. His faith in them -- the grace he shows -- reshapes their natures in turn.
Perhaps his Superman is, at times, withdrawn and troubled. He has doubts, frustrations, and wavering faith. But, then, don't we all fall? Isn't the trick to seeing that what falls isn't fallen? We all stumble and fall on our way to the light. All we have to do -- all Superman has to show us -- is how to trust in love to be a source of Grace. And if that isn't the point of Superman, if that isn't the appeal of Superman, then I don't know what is. All I know is that the DCEU may not be the most outgoing, expressive, or beloved by audiences, but he is a good albeit complex man. He most certainly isn't someone who can be diminutively derided as befitting strawman labels like "dark and edgy" or "light and comical," as you suggest.
DCEU Superman is not an apocryphal Superman; however, the world and the context within which he existed did break with tradition. More than any other incarnation of the character, Superman debuted in a world that needed him. Humanity's true Nature was challenged to accept the hope Superman represented: a process that also challenged Superman. But, in the end, Superman's commitment to seeing love in all things, even suffering and death, changed the world. For every other Superman, the shift from enigmatic newcomer to celebrity saint is close to instantaneous and universal.
The "appeal of Superman" should never rest on relegating him to a sugar-coated world where his optimism, humor, and victory is facilitated by a contrived narrative cocoon. Unless, of course, that is the "appeal of Superman" after all. Maybe what has always been appealing about Superman has nothing to do with his hope, optimism, dignity, and grace in the face of difficulties analogous to our own. Maybe it's all about the wish-fulfillment power fantasy: the nerd outcast who discovers he's a lost prince from the stars with the power to acquire instant celebrity and the girl of his dreams. Someone who bends the world to his will with power over life and death, memory, and time itself. A version of the character who inspires his fans to want to be him more than to be like him.
Very well said.
More important than the next actor is the next creative team. I wouldn't mind Peter J. Tomasi.
Tomasi is ok, a little hit and miss though. Has he ever written a film before?
Not live action. He is coming off of the Death of Superman animated film. There are other Superman writers but only Geoff Johns has a connection with the studio. I brought of Tomasi as maybe he could use the animated film to wiggle his way into the studio's consciousness. Other Superman writers are often mentioned, like Waid and Morrison but they have no studio connections that I'm aware of. There are some other writers out there who have passed through my mind. The next film needs a writer comfortable with Superman and his supporting characters.
I don't think it needs to be someone who's super familiar with the lore. Sometimes getting someone who can look at the characters with a fresh eye will bring out something special.
It's not so much having someone familiar with the lore as having someone comfortable with the character. Having read the scripts that got made as well as most of the ones that didn't you see a pattern of them struggling with dialogue for these characters. The screenwriters from the outside have complained how difficult it is to write Superman and his world. Having someone with Superman cred isn't a must but I think would give the project a better chance to succeed. There are some non-comic book writers that have some experience with Superman that I would also consider.
Bryan Q. Miller wrote for Smallville for five years, wrote the Smallville comic, wrote a popular run of Batgirl (featuring Stephanie Brown), wrote the screenplay for the recent DC animated film Justice League vs. Teen Titans, and has written for several other superhero/sci-fi shows, including CW's The Flash and Arrow. Miller's scripts for Smallville featured the Superman supporting characters like Dan Turpin, Toyman, Faora, and Ultraman as well as bigger players like the Legion of Doom, Zatanna, and Desaad. One of my favorite Smallville scenes was in "Warrior," which features the show's version of Billy Batson/Shazam (Alec Abrams/Warrior Angel).
I'd be pleased if someone like Miller were involved in a DCEU Superman film.
I wasnt saying Cavills Superman was edgy, I was saying that WB only seems to find interest in DC films that are either dark and edgy or light and comical. That certainly applies to their approach to BvS and JL, and given WBs track record with Superman films, I dont expect that to change.
I do think there is more to the Superman character than just an exploration of how he retains and empart grace though being slighted and reviled. Though he helps people, theyve written this largely isolated and introspective Superman in such a way that his desire to help people seems to come merely from an inexplicable, almost genetically-programmed instinct, rather than his joy in humanity. I think thats the best way I can put it, because though he finds joy in Lois and peace in Martha, he does not seem to have any broader joy in belonging to humanity. Thats whats been missing to me, and I think its profoundly important because it should shape how hes written (even in a complex environment like the one he encounters in BvS).
*Edit: I want to restate that. The root issue I think I see is that in BvS, Clark (even as Clark) is isolated in such a way and behaves in such a way that he doesnt identify with humanity, despite spending 13 years thinking he was human and another 20 living as a super-powered human. I dont think that set him up well to really explore the broader facets of the character.*
Yes, I get that many, many comics focus on Supermans inherent loneliness as the last son of Krypton. And yes, I get that this is supposed to be what his three (five?) film journey is about. But I dont think its the best foundation for Superman (starting his journey with the question of trusting humanity requires an interesting but ultimately problematic approach). And I dont think they came close to making this journey from isolation to acceptance credible because they didnt focus on the very things that would get him there (not facing persecution and death, but encountering and depending on and upholding the good in ordinary people, not just Lois and Martha and other heroes/vigilantes).
As for a sugar-coated world, I think BvS inevitably forces that to take place since the film is so much about an unchanging world reacting to Superman rather than Superman growing in response to the world. JLs much less complicated world only seems to support that outcome.
As Ive said before, I think the best way for Snyder to have developed Superman after MOS would have been to use the Batman/Superman conflict (and that whole question of vigilantism and extra-legal intervention) to refine Supermans view of his role on Earth and the ways in which he can best help people. As Ive also expressed, I think Superman has been at his best when he actually wants to improve human life, not just keep it safe; when he shows concern and steps into the street-level happenings, and not just when he rescues and then keeps to himself. I think that Superman was the one that MOS was setting up, the one who embraces that he is as much a child of Earth as of Krypton.
Ill be honest, Ive never understood this. Yes, Clark is not the typical character with a moral deficiency or physical weakness that needs to be overcome throughout the course of a character arc. But there are plenty of compelling characters who have been more or less of good character. I wont claim to have any level of skill as a writer, but this is why I think part of the problem is that many of these writers have really only a surface-level familiarity with Superman (or worse, only a passing idea of public perception of him). I think one thing that will make a difference is someone being willing to take a good look at Superman over the last few decades. I think theres quite enough there to get a good idea for a good character arc.
I don't think "dark and edgy" applies to BvS at all. BvS is a existential revenge tragedy. It is a serious film with philosophical overtones. Using words like "dark and edgy" is too simplistic. Even JL, which features some woeful attempts at levity and comedy, is not what I would consider "light and comical." It is a serious story with ill-fated attempts at bathos. It's a mess of narratives and tones befitting its troubled production.
I disagree with all of the above as well. Clark's desire to help people doesn't seem to emerge from obligation or programming at all. At every step in his journey, the narrative emphasizes free will and choice. That is the essence of his birth on Krypton: Kal is a natural born free child who is unshackled by obligation and blood to become whatever and whomever he chooses to be. Martha reiterates this freedom to choose to her son in BvS.
Thus, every time Clark saves someone and is Superman, he is doing so by choice. Why? Because just as there are people in this world who seem like they don't deserve saving, there are those who set an example. Lana is a friend to Clark; Clark is a friend to Pete. Pete is a friend to Clark; Clark is a friend Lois. Lois is a friend to Clark; Clark is a friend to Hardy. It is obvious Superman's joy in humanity comes from taking these leaps of faith on those who bully him and seeing that faith rewarded with trust and respect.
What it sounds like you are missing is Superman taking pleasure in adoration. That his choice to be Superman -- to help people -- would come from receiving positive affirmations from his efforts, including a positive relationship with humanity. Well, that's exactly what you missed in the quote from The Tree of Life. The true test of a real Superman is someone who chooses to save people even though they slight and dislike him.
Superman upholds the good in ordinary people when he saves ordinary people and seeks their counsel. He saves Pete. He seeks counsel from Father Leone. When in the midst of his own difficulties, he seeks to bring peace and justice to the beleaguered citizens of Gotham despite the protestations of his boss who cannot hide his frustration at his cub reporter's naive idealism. Lois Lane, an ambitious journalist, is convinced to kill the biggest story of her career because she listens to the stories ordinary men and women share about their guardian angel. Colonel Hardy sees Superman is not his enemy when he saves an unnamed soldier from death in the midst of enemy fire.
Huh? My point is that Superman is unchanging while the world around him is different. As in, typically Superman's unshakeable joy and optimism exists in contexts that avoid reality by placing Superman in a bubble. Whereas, in BvS, Superman is still the same character, but the world around him is different. Thus, his response to that world reflects Superman's response to a world facing existential crisis. JL's world is less complicated because Superman's sacrifice made it so.
You have literally just described Superman's arc in BvS. Clark chooses to pursue the Batman story over the Nairomi story because he believes one's choices reveal who matters and who is worth it. Kahina and Keefe have the world stage; their voices are being heard. Who will give voice to the voiceless in Gotham? Who will not just rescue people from criminals but actually speak to members of a community to understand their needs and address them?
I really enjoyed his run on Batgirl, was a little heartbroken when it ended.
Haven't seen any of his other work, but I wouldn't be opposed to him being involved.
I am also someone who liked Miller's work. I thought he wrote some terrific character banter and his scenes had warmth and charm. A long time ago I told a person at WB about him. There weren't any plans for him at the studio.
Yeah, I wouldn't think so. If I recall correctly, it was Geoff Johns who got Miller the job writing Batgirl for DC after they worked together on Smallville (see: episodes "Legion," "Absolute Justice," and "Booster"). It would be interesting to see him involved, but I have never expected it to happen.
You're right. Through Smallville, Miller approached Johns and got his break into comics. After Johns got power at WB I was hoping he would find a place for Miller. I always thought his character bits and dialogue were something these movies could use. In fact, I've always been surprised at how few writers from Smallville went onto anything significant. Michael Green from season 1 and Steve DeKnight from season 4 come to mind.
I can't help but think the angle to maybe go is with light hearted humour - imagine thor ragnorak, moving forward, he has to disguise himself so he creates an alter ego and we have some fun with that, then he gets to unleash and be thor - or like chris pratt, not his humour per se, but his attitude, to be holding it back, then playing up the goofy side - ic an't help but think Marvel would crush a superman movie and really give us a film the general audience love.
I'm ok with having some humour, but I worry about focusing too much on comedy. Let's not have another Superman III.