Reboot: Character Portrayal

[SuperDaniel]

IMO, this next film will be make or break it time for Superman on film and they know it. Thats why I have a feeling they'll pull out the stops for it.
If this film does average/below expections at the B.O., then forgetaboutit for a looooong time.

They should just use my script. LOL

 

[Webhead2006]

yea staying around 150mill mark is a nice budget and if used wisely you can make a kick butt looking film.

 

[GreenKToo]

Yup, I agree. Its when you start filming 10 mill dollar scenes, then cutting them out, that causes problems. I liked S.R., but it sure didnt feel like a 200 mill dollar film to me.

 

[El Payaso]

Yup, I agree. Its when you start filming 10 mill dollar scenes, then cutting them out, that causes problems. I liked S.R., but it sure didnt feel like a 200 mill dollar film to me.

With that deleted Krypton scene SR would surely have been felt 10 mill dollars better.

 

[GreenKToo]

The editing overall is what hurt it. Lots of scenes that explained more were cut.
Now, I'm not saying those scenes would have helped the B.O. overall, but we'll never know tho.

 

[El Payaso]

So what problems does cutting a 10 mill dollars scene actually cause?

 

[stargazer]

no.

theres nothing wrong with superman being "bad ass", but that does not require making him a dark and brooding batman type. "bad ass" and "big blue boy scout" are not mutually exclusive. if making superman dark and brooding is the only way to satisfy the general movie going audience, then i'd rather they just dont make anymore superman films. because thats not superman.

AGREED.

And I had avoided reading this thread because I felt the title was totally wrong. I still do.

This is supposed to be Superman, not darkman.



I like the way Brandon Routh put it,


IESB: A lot of people don't think Superman can be that dark, or that you could make such a dark Superman film.

BR: I don't know, I don't think the character necessarily has to be darker, I think he is kind of dark in a sense, emotional dark, in Superman Returns, and the movie as a whole was slightly dark, they could have had more prowess in it I suppose, and I think that's one thing that can be done in the sequel, so I don't know how much darker you want to make it necessarily. You make the stakes higher, you make the villain darker, I think that's a way to do it. But I don't think Superman himself needs to be darker. He definitely has to struggle, how does Superman be a part of the world? And does he have to make sacrifices to be a part of that world? To fit in and what purpose does he really play in the world? Those are all kind of dark places to explore. But, I don't think Superman should ever be dark and brooding, that's not is nature. And that's now what people what to see. Like Brainiac or something like that, a situation when the villain is...

IESB: Would that be a good, if you had a choice is that the villain you'd like to see in the next Superman?

BR: I think it would certainly be interesting, I think there are a lot of things you could do with Brainiac. He's been given a lot of power and a lot of different abilities over the years in the comics, as far as I understand. I know that DC is working on a Brainiac storyline that they are excited about and I think combining the two and have that flow between the comics and the movie would be a nice thing. I honestly think there are a lot of interesting things you can do with Brainiac. Controlling people, controlling technology, a lot of cool things.

http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5691&Itemid=99

 

[GreenKToo]

So what problems does cutting a 10 mill dollars scene actually cause?

Not just that one scene, but several.
The whole Luthor being behind the krypton thing.
More scenes of Clark discovering that the world had moved on.
The scenes with ben and Martha discussing moving to Montana and selling the farm.

I cant speak for everyone but I never got the sense that Metropolis had moved on from anything, much less the entire world.

But, since you asked, that one scene would have been crucial in showing Superman's need, and just how far he would go, in discovering if he were truly alone or not. Not to mention the eye candy it would have provided that MIGHT OF or MIGHT NOT OF helped the B.O.
Instead, all we got in reference to the excursion was a few lines. ''I'm alone i'm all thats left'', ''that place is a graveyard'', etc.

 

[SuperDaniel]

IMO, even those deleted scenes wouldn't save Superman Returns from how bad the movie is. It would make it longer and more boring. SR just had the wrong story to be told and a terrible villain.

 

[GreenKToo]

Its partially the fans fault. I ( and i'm sure others here) can remember back when burton was onboard, then ratner, then etc etc. The fans hated those ideas and wanted someone to continue on with Donner's version of Superman.

That led to W.B. hiring Singer. He had the right idea, but it was executed poorly.
IMO he underestimated what the public wanted, and that was a Villain that could stand toe to toe with the man of steel.

If we get another, I have no doubt we'll get just that, which is a supervillain(s) and loads of action. I just hope they dont go from one extreme (too much drama, too dark) to the next( too campy, cartoony)

 

[El Payaso]

Not just that one scene, but several.
The whole Luthor being behind the krypton thing.
More scenes of Clark discovering that the world had moved on.
The scenes with ben and Martha discussing moving to Montana and selling the farm.

Yeah, but I'm curious about your inclusion of the "10 mill dollars" in this editing criticism. None of those scenes you mention would take that money.

But I agree, some points should have been re-inforced. Now, I can't see a 5 minutes trip to Krypton scene giving us much pace or needed info, as much as it could cost.

I cant speak for everyone but I never got the sense that Metropolis had moved on from anything, much less the entire world.

Yes. Actually the movie is not about the world without Superman at all. It's about Superman, or the man behind the Superman.

It would have been interesting to explore people's feeling towards Superman though but it simply wasn't the point here.

But, since you asked, that one scene would have been crucial in showing Superman's need, and just how far he would go, in discovering if he were truly alone or not. Not to mention the eye candy it would have provided that MIGHT OF or MIGHT NOT OF helped the B.O.
Instead, all we got in reference to the excursion was a few lines. ''I'm alone i'm all thats left'', ''that place is a graveyard'', etc.

Other than the "eye candy," any other piece of information is either there or could have been there without the Krypton scene.

I'd say what SR needed was a 10 mill dollars action scene against a giant robot. Needed or not it would have helped a lot.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Its partially the fans fault. I ( and i'm sure others here) can remember back when burton was onboard, then ratner, then etc etc. The fans hated those ideas and wanted someone to continue on with Donner's version of Superman.

That led to W.B. hiring Singer. He had the right idea, but it was executed poorly.
IMO he underestimated what the public wanted, and that was a Villain that could stand toe to toe with the man of steel.

If we get another, I have no doubt we'll get just that, which is a supervillain(s) and loads of action. I just hope they dont go from one extreme (too much drama, too dark) to the next( too campy, cartoony)

The fans just want an awesome and faithful Superman movie and we still didn't get it.

 

[GreenKToo]

Yeah, but I'm curious about your inclusion of the "10 mill dollars" in this editing criticism. None of those scenes you mention would take that money.

But I agree, some points should have been re-inforced. Now, I can't see a 5 minutes trip to Krypton scene giving us much pace or needed info, as much as it could cost.



Yes. Actually the movie is not about the world without Superman at all. It's about Superman, or the man behind the Superman.

It would have been interesting to explore people's feeling towards Superman though but it simply wasn't the point here.



Other than the "eye candy," any other piece of information is either there or could have been there without the Krypton scene.

I'd say what SR needed was a 10 mill dollars action scene against a giant robot. Needed or not it would have helped a lot.

I agree. Even Zod would have been acceptable in S.R. The 10 mill scene I mentioned is what the RTK scene reportedly cost to film, and was then left on the cutting room floor.

The fans just want an awesome and faithful Superman movie and we still didn't get it.

again I agree. S.R. had its moments when it really wanted to shine ( plane/shuttle scene, yacht lifting) but, overall it didnt have the action that I had been waiting for. I never could get into it like I wanted to and that really pi$$ed me off.

That said, i've never bashed it. I dont even hate it, but it could have AND should have been soo much more.

 

[nintendo nerd]

The fans just want an awesome and faithful Superman movie and we still didn't get it.

I did. I love SR.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Good for you. You get satisfied with so little.

 

[stargazer]

Not just that one scene, but several.
The whole Luthor being behind the krypton thing.
More scenes of Clark discovering that the world had moved on.
The scenes with ben and Martha discussing moving to Montana and selling the farm.

.

Directors do that ALL the time. It's part of making movies.

Besides, I and many others were able to understand the movie just fine the way it was edited. There was enough exposition.

I did. I love SR.

Same here.

Good for you. You get satisfied with so little.

No. We see things in the movie that you perhaps can't. It's a matter of taste.

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I like how certain people are saying "so and so will DEFINITELY be Superman", when Brandon is the only actor that's been interviewed about him.

 

[Webhead2006]

Yea it makes you wonder besides the 10mill RTK scene getting cut where else did the films budget go.

 

[C. Lee]

Good for you. You get satisfied with so little.

Why didn't you stop with "Good for you."? I overall did not like SR....but I will not take potshots or put down those who do. There is no need for it. No two people are alike....not everyone will hate something and not everyone will love it. Learn to accept that people can like or hate something that you feel the exact oposite about.....and neither you or they are wrong.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^

 

[GreenKToo]

Directors do that ALL the time. It's part of making movies.

Besides, I and many others were able to understand the movie just fine the way it was edited. There was enough exposition.





Same here.





No. We see things in the movie that you perhaps can't. It's a matter of taste.

Umm, I got it just fine. But, it was not the film we had been following in production for months. They (singer and company) kept playing up the whole ''the world had moved on from Superman angle'', and then chose to edit it so that it didnt feel that way at all.
Quite frankly, I felt cheated at the final product.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I'm not putting down people's tastes. Just said a Superman movie is capable of showing much more than what was presented on screen, therefore, the "satisfied with little" comment.

 

[C. Lee]

I cant speak for everyone but I never got the sense that Metropolis had moved on from anything, much less the entire world.

They hadn't....or they wouldn't have been so excited to see him when he returned (the plane rescue at the stadium) or to write about him (Perry White marshalling the troops at the Daily Planet) or worried about his health (all the people at the hospital). The only person who was in a funk about him being gone was Lois.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Another thing Singer promised and did not delivered. I think that maybe Singer should've worked in the script in order to tell a more cohesive and complete story. THe script as it is for SR is a complete mess. The episode "Big Girls don't Fly" of Lois & Clark dealt with the themes of SR in a much better way. I know that show is not adored by most fans but it had the right heart when they dealt with their relationship. In the end, Singer's blind adoration for Donner and lack of knowledge of Superman's entire history is what dethroned him from the director's chair.

People who go to the theaters to watch a comic book movie want to be entertained. Superman is an alien, flies, is all powerfull and all and everything he did in the movie was saving a plane, the only REALLY good action sequence, and lift a huge piece of Rock?????!?!?!?!

The story of SR should've been the rise of Luthor, creating LexCorp and using kryptonian technollogy to somehow make the world a better place not some stupid land scheme. It was the perfect opportunity to upgrade what Donner did wrong and that was how they treated Luthor. When Supes comes back, Luthor is adored by people, the world has moved on from heroes. In the end, Braniac basically takes over everything and Supes is the only one who can stop him.

Then it would've been a SERIOUS AND FAITHFUL Superman movie, full of action, super-powered villain and all. The possibilites are endless for THOSE who ACTUALLY know Superman, his history and comics and are able to write a decent script.

SR as it is didn't work at all as an entertaining movie, at least for me. I was bored most of the time. Being in the theater was dreadful. I was watching my favorite character being destroyed by Hollywood once more and it's not because the fact SR is a terrible movie. It's just OK. It had some good moments. And that is the worse thing because I know the character of Superman is capable of much more than what was presented by Singer and i'm glad he isn't comming back.

 

[GreenKToo]

I look forward to the day they announce the director. No matter who gets it, they'll be some words exchanged here.