Reintroducing Superman: An Open Discussion

[KalMart]

I left the "conversation" about Superman Returns' marketing because I gave examples of them marketing the film with action (as you asked). But you opted to ignore it to instead just crap on the film.

Wrong, I didn't crap on the film. I simply pointed out that the films that seem to benefit from 'bigger, better' marketing also have more to deliver. That's not saying that SR sucked. You're the one who decided to compensate by getting testy.

You can like or dislike said film as much as you so desire. But it was clear that was all it was about.

See above.

Grow a brain.

Show us how first.

Relax man.

This on the other hand is about Star Trek.

Both of them in fact. Granted, I don't see that a good thing in any way, shape or form.

I thought they delivered what people generally wanted to see from them.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Wrong, I didn't crap on the film. I simply pointed out that the films that seem to benefit from 'bigger, better' marketing also have more to deliver. That's not saying that SR sucked. You're the one who decided to compensate by getting testy.

Sure, you were. With comments like "Good thing Star Trek actually had a product to work off of." And since when does being "testy" involve calling someone out? It doesn't?!? I didn't think so. Let's just move the discussion back to Trek.

 

[KalMart]

Sure, you were. With comments like "Good thing Star Trek actually had a product to work off of."

Which I still hold to as a fair and serious assessment. I think you overracted to a il-perceived agenda there. I wasn't saying that SR sucked, but it certainly didn't have the breadth and variety of action and excitement in its material to sell like ST had....hence it makes it a lot more difficult for marketing to emphasize.

You emphasized ST's marketing doing abetter job than SR's.....but pound-for-pound, they had more material to do it with.

And since when does being "testy" involve calling someone out? It doesn't?!? I didn't think so.

Since you got testy and tried the whole answer-your-own-question shtick, ace. You didn't call anyone out....you only left little pictures, then turned and ran. Not very far, but hey.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

 

[KalMart]

Alrighty, another good one.



AAAAAaaaanyway. ST did a good job and kept the bar high for big-time franchises in this era. One can only hope that the Superman franchise can measure up to the same efforts...on all ends.

 

[KalMart]

I've got it!

SUPER TREK!

Or "This Ain't Your Father's Superman"

 

[Webhead2006]

So i was thinking now that johns has been revealed to be working on both flash and shazam films. Why could he or morrison/wolfman also be invovled with superman to a degree with other writers too while working on what ever projects(wolfman/morrison) that havent been revealed yet. If johns could work on two why couldnt the others or all three have a hand in things.

 

[Webhead2006]

It really does blow alot things have to be so hard for them to get superman moving again, the whole legal stuff, and all that. To bad things couldnt be in a better place.

 

[MadVillainy]

Honestly I'm skeptical about comic writers doing writing the films. I think you should have a director or writer who has respect for the comics like Nolan or Faverau but dont have actual comic book writers write because it seem like they tend to think of the film as a comic book storyline

Mark Millar while decent, his ideas for Superman were very questionable, Frank Miller who was the man back in the day has alot of classics under his belt and yet Robocop 2&3 werent accepted well, and then David Goyer he wrote Blade I/II but he also wrote Blade III & Nick Fury

So as I said comic book writers should stick to doing comics while actual screenwriters do their thing

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The last few pages were tremendously entertaining to me.

Ah we always have the same arguements over and over again...











HELP US WB!.

 

[GreenKToo]

well, we could talk about this...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=292994&page=171
post 4265

 

[Octoberist]

I'm not against them being consultants.

And I do believe that Geoff Johns comes from a film background to boot.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

well, we could talk about this...

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=292994&page=171
post 4265

He's right about the origin thing. It's been overdone, and with Smallville kinda killing it for everyone, I can see this new direction as something good, sans the origin.

 

[SuperDaniel]

I personally don't care for Krypton. What i want to see is the Smallville scenes done right, like in Superman for all seasons. That is a must in the next movie because it shows Superman's motivations and i don't think that was ever explored in any medium aside from the comics. No more some holographic parent brainwashing Clark kent into being Jesus Christ. I want to see Clark chosing to be a hero because he sees the destruction of the Tornado in Smallville and sees he could've done more to protect the people.

 

[Sawyer]

Star Trek success? Sure, to a point. Superman Returns still Outgrossed Star Trek worldwide..

Success is so relative.

Dont pull that stuff. SR cost over 50 million more to make than Star Trek, but made only about 10 million more. Trek was a bigger success.

And I dont think Star Trek cut ties with the past at all. It was just a new beginning.

 

[BestGirl]

Surveillance camera footage from SR marketing dept. screening.

And the next Superman movie definitely needs to reshow Supes's origin in some fashion. Every year that passes takes us further from the Donner series so fewer people will have seen his origin on screen.

 

[SuperDaniel]

The thing is...How the hell will they use someone like Braniac if they can't mention Krypton? It has to be all or nothing, IMO. They need to mention everything in an reboot. It's ridiculous to not have all the options. WB better pay the Siegels and hope for the best with the new movie.

 

[KalMart]

And the next Superman movie definitely needs to reshow Supes's origin in some fashion. Every year that passes takes us further from the Donner series so fewer people will have seen his origin on screen.

Fewer years passed between the latest run of Batman movies and BB. And although BB mat have faced a bit of confusion or hesitance because of how things had gone with 'Forever' and B&R, I think people were able to go along just fine with everything being a new start. So I say if they are going to restart, just do it, and do it well. People will catch on just fine....it's not like STM was Star Wars.

As far as the origin part....Krypton, Smallville, et al...I dunno, I think they might be able to save that for the second movie if there is one, dedicating more of the restart to reintroducing Superman being Superman. Maybe a few small glimpses of his origin, instead of a big chunk of the first act, like most origin films.

 

[KalMart]

The thing is...How the hell will they use someone like Braniac if they can't mention Krypton? It has to be all or nothing, IMO. They need to mention everything in an reboot. It's ridiculous to not have all the options. WB better pay the Siegels and hope for the best with the new movie.

Was the original concept of Braniac always connected directly to Krypton, or do the S&S's have specific rights to Braniac? Otherwise, write a version of Braniac that has nothing to do with Krypton.

 

[Crook]

Braniac was always an alien entity, but it was STAS that connected him to Krypton. I suppose they can go with the original origins, but the latter provides a much more potent connection to the hero, which is always the best.

 

[KalMart]

Braniac was always an alien entity, but it was STAS that connected him to Krypton. I suppose they can go with the original origins, but the latter provides a much more potent connection to the hero, which is always the best.

I always liked the idea of Braniac being at least indirectly responsible for krypton's destruction....or at least the failure of the Kryptonians to foresee it. But if for some reason Krypton can't be mentioned/developed....then I guess they'll have to choose another origin for him if the benefits of incorporating him as a villain outweigh having to connect him with Krypton.

 

[GreenKToo]

I always liked the idea of Braniac being at least indirectly responsible for krypton's destruction....or at least the failure of the Kryptonians to foresee it. But if for some reason Krypton can't be mentioned/developed....then I guess they'll have to choose another origin for him if the benefits of incorporating him as a villain outweigh having to connect him with Krypton.

Yeah me too. The way I feel about this whole legal situation is, money talks.
Throw enough at the familes and they will go away (for now)

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Yeah me too. The way I feel about this whole legal situation is, money talks.
Throw enough at the familes and they will go away (for now)

True but the more money the studio throws at the Siegel's, the less profitable making another Superman film becomes. What's it in for the studio then to make another film?

Also, come 2013, if/when the Shuster family acquires the other half of the copyright (which is currently held by WB/DC), then they'll have two families to contend with.

The Siegel's won't be the only ones they'll have to worry about and pay off...

 

[GreenKToo]

I guess they will have to weigh one against the other.
Paying Tens of millions to the families Vs not paying them and risk losing BILLIONS.
(I'm talking everything overall, not just a film.)

 

[DavidTyler]

1) I think it needs to cut ties with Superman Returns. I say if it can retain its ties with the earlier films, then great.

2) You are aware that a "back to basics" approach is the opposite of cutting ties with the past.

3) Why does everything have to be defined by a director's last name? I've never once said to someone, "hey! I'm gonna go watch Donner."

1) Here is where we disagree. Not interested in Donner or Singer's take on the character. Donner's film was a comedy and Singer's a maudlin take on that comedy.

2) Cutting ties with the earlier films is just that. I want no ties to those films. They weren't the cloth that the character was cut from. I want to go back to the comics and take the original, basic concept and work it for a modern, more sophisticated audience. This is what Byrne and Wolfman did (although Byrne's Krypton was kind of influenced by the cold sterility of the Donner film, it didn't mirror it.)

3) Why would you even be so sensitive about that? Donner made the decisions for his film and Singer for SR. Of course those films can be defined by the individual responsible for making them.