Isildur´s Heir said:
Batman Begins is not perfect (like many like to think, but it´s the best so far and a great movie), mainly because Nolan and Co. failed when it comes to The Dark Knight himself.
Huh??? What are you talking about? They
nailed that character. The only possible exception - at least to judge from how Bats has been portrayed in a number of comic stories - is that in the scene on the monorail, the "real" (ahem) Batman would likely have saved al Gul, even though he wouldn't enjoy doing it.
ultimatefan said:
Sorry Isildur, but this is one of the worst arguments I have ever seen on the boards. Any philosophers will tell you truth is a very relative concept, - facts may be not, but even historical and scientific facts are often open to argument - in the case of fiction, well, fiction is ALL about subjectivity, it´s ALL about things having different interpretations, different version.
Hey, slow down there, Plato; you've seriously overlooked some things. First of all, no, NOT "any philosopher will tell you truth is a very relative concept"; that's YOU saying that, not "any philosopher." Secondly, you've refuted your own position by arguing very strongly that
you are "right" and Isildur is "wrong"; if truth really were relative, you wouldn't argue about anything. By arguing for a position, you show that you're subconsciously assuming the reality of absolute truth. Thirdly, if it's "all about things having different interpretations," then that would mean that very statement is open to interpretation, which means that although you think it's a true statement, it's not really true.
So you've pretty much just detonated your own philosophical minefield there.
BUT, when it comes to the realm of comicbook stories, in THAT context (as opposed to real life), yeah, different interpretations can all be equally valid (this is NOT the case with real life), and therefore I too am open to different versions of any given comicbook character, including Supes.
fangrl06 said:
One thing I don't understand is that if Jason is Superman's son, but was conceived when Superman had no powers, how can he have powers?
Personally, I would think that the kid's powers would be dormant in his genes, just as Supes' powers were dormant and could be reactivated in the second half of
Superman II. A possible plot device in a sequel might have the kid being exposed to whatever Kryptonian energies reactivated Superman's powers in the earlier film. Maybe Jason could even turn evil and give Supes a run for his money.
J.Howlett said:
See, that's the problem WB and Singer had to deal with. Do you retell the origin story that EVERYONE knows? If you don't retell the origin story, how do you bring Superman back to the screen? And if you do, do you cast with older actors to keep continuity? But, we want to make another franchise, so do we cast young so we can at least make 3 of these over a ten year period?
Simple. You have the movie begin with Clark's introduction to Metropolis and
The Daily Planet; you don't spend the first hour of the film in Smallville. Within, say, half and hour of the new movie's beginning, Superman makes his first public appearance. Lois Lane scores an interview with him, and during the interview we get flashback scenes that quickly summarize Kal-El's arrival on Earth and his growing-up years. Of course, what he reveals to Lois in the interview and what the
audience sees in the flashbacks would be rather different; a scene like that could show the tension Superman feels with having to lie to people and thus finding it difficult to grow close to anyone. After the flashback stuff you carry on with the rest of the film's main plot, which could be nearly exactly like it is now in
Returns.
Singer should've asked me for ideas ahead of time.
(Actually, if I had made
Batman Begins I might've followed a similar structure. Still, we'd never seen Batman's origin on-screen before, so in his case it was fresh and interesting.)
As far as continuity with the previous films goes, well, a little psychological trick I play on myself in order to enjoy a story more is to simply pretend that the back story is a little different from what I know it to be. So in this case I won't allow myself to think strictly in terms of
Superman the Movie and
Superman II. I'll just pretend that the backstory involves Lois and Clark when they're still fairly young, and maybe Lois's big break into full-fledged reporting his her interview with Superman.
Imagine that instead of the 30-year-old Lois in STM, she was just a cub reporter fresh out of college. Superman saves her life, and since he's attracted to her, he grants her an interview. That interview, along with her own talent, vaults her into full-fledged reporter status.
Superman II occurs very shortly after those events, and then five years later we have
Superman Returns, and the main characters are only in the second half of their 20s. By reimagining the backstory, I can gain more enjoyment out of
Returns even though the key actors are quite young.
That's my favourite comic of all time, tell me more fatboy.
