Some insight into Goyer's script perhaps?

[GreenKToo]

I have nothing against either of you but can you guys take it to PM, please??

 

[Nightwing1983]

I have nothing against either of you but can you guys take it to PM, please??

Gladly.

 

[GreenKToo]

thank you..

 

[KalMart]

I think the 'man on the street' way of starting the movie could be really interesting.

Maybe somehwat on that level, y'know? At least to start, and establish the wonder and maybe even some mystery/fear surrounding this incredible being that shows up out of nowhere....with the kind of impact and energy that modern movies can put into it.

 

[KyleDW2]

I didn't say he did...I'm saying that I'd prefer not having it...action or no action...in the first movie. Both for the purposes of the story's perspective, as well as to get better use out of the 'origin' later on.



Maybe somehwat on that level, y'know? At least to start, and establish the wonder and maybe even some mystery/fear surrounding this incredible being that shows up out of nowhere....with the kind of impact and energy that modern movies can put into it.

Remember that scene in Superman Returns where he was flying all around the world and stopping disasters? That should be the opening. Establish that Superman exists and nobody knows who he is. Then, months later, in walks Clark Kent. He comes to the Daily Planet and he knows about Superman. From there on we get to find out who Clark is, why he became Superman, etc. The Batman Begins approach with a cold opening and then we move forward and backward as needs be.

 

[Nightwing1983]

Remember that scene in Superman Returns where he was flying all around the world and stopping disasters? That should be the opening. Establish that Superman exists and nobody knows who he is. Then, months later, in walks Clark Kent. He comes to the Daily Planet and he knows about Superman. From there on we get to find out who Clark is, why he became Superman, etc. The Batman Begins approach with a cold opening and then we move forward and backward as needs be.

Mmm... I could go along with that.

 

[The Batman]

Wow! Temper tantrum!



Kyle, Kyle, Kyle... apparently, you've been in geek-land too long to remember what a huge success Batman Forever was. 2nd biggest movie of the year and all. Heck, even Batman & Robin grossed more than $100-million domestic. No, I really don't think that it was a "miracle" at-all, just finding the right approach.



Aww... now you gone and done hurt ma feelin's. Forgot to mention, though, that while you never substantiated your claim that BB was such a huge hit on DVD; taking your word for it, the film plays a lot better on home viewing. Not quite what you pay to see a Batman movie for, but plays well on a rainy day. That's the place these über-anylitical things have.



This is the part where you say, "if they throw some random violence at the screen, it's action, so that's what people wanna see." Heck, his little Safari is what turned me off of the GN. It's just such an arbitrary thing to pin so much of the character's psyche on.



Hey, I don't have a problem with that. I'd just rather not have to sit through the boring, pointless Safari.



Unfortunately. I mean, the fact that your argument is so heavily-pinned on the Hotel Rawanda stuff Waid arbitrarily added to the story AND that it's supposed to be the heart & soul of the character rather than something that had been there all along tells me that--on its face--Spider-Man and Iron Man just lent themselves better.

I mean, Earth-One was better because... oh wait, you weren't done.





Yes and no. It's an interesting visual but it's been done, and even if they could improve on it, it's not the same as seeing Superman--in full regalia--fighting a cool, new-to-the-screen villain.

But anyway, back to Earth One. I'm not a JMS fan, and you know how I feel about you; but I nevertheless liked Earth One and think it would make a good movie. Why? Because it's simply more organic.

Superman is an alien, so it makes sense that he would battle--yes--an alien invasion. Cooler visuals, more epic sci-fi stuff. Just fits better.



Kyle, you didn't even grasp my point. Not only that, but you really need to watch that temper of yours.



Well, not entirely; but what's your point? "The movie showed his motivation?" Um... okay. That's nice. Um, I thought every movie ever made showed the main character's motivation.



Yeah, it was a lot like License to Kill. Not really big on either film, but though it has more to do with just little things nickle-and-diming it. I'm still not sure what your point is. First one, he's in lo...

OH WAIT!!! YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY I DON'T WANT MOVIES TO GIVE CHARACTERS MOTIVATIONS!!!

Yeah, I didn't say that, that's stupid. I just thought it was ironic that you claim to represent "the general audience," but want something more like Batman Begins it kinda plods, and in the other movies you're mentioning, that's not exactly the draw.



Dude, calm down. Your forehead is setting off the sprinklers.



Now, let's get into the three-pronged problem here.

1) The reason you're even claiming to be a fan is because you love this notion that Superman has this unfortunate old-foggie image which you can blame on everything pre-1986 and say that everything post-1986 (except the live-action stuff) is gold and that if only the audience could see that they'd embrace the character.

2) You've fallen in love with the notion that since certain other superheroes are defined by their motivations (e.g. assassinated parents) that if they gave Superman some token-motivation and centered the film on that then he'd be as popular as everyone else and if they don't, he'll go back to 1991 levels of unpopularity. It's a sure-fire thing, yet if they don't do it, it'll be the demise of the character.

3) This allows you to not only play armchair-executive, but to get in everyone's face, playing yourself as the "hip young dude," and everyone who doesn't agree with you as this "old boy network" of fuddy-duddy-fans. As with many fans of the armchair-executive type, you project your own viewpoints of what you want to see (see #2) onto them and anyone who sees it differently "doesn't get it." Of course if they have an argument, you distort what they say in order to make a strawman argument so that whoever it is you're trying to impress will (hopefully) think you've won and proven that you're so hip and with-it.

And with that, I'd like to say that it's time for something more action-packed and sci-fi-oriented. His little Safari might have some elements of that, but it's just so arbitrary and tacked-on. I mean, I'd still see it and hope that it gets better after a while; but again, that's not what gets asses in seats, and the fact that you had to do so much dancing in your "argument" just shows that I'm right and you're wrong but want to look "right."

Earth-One would be a better model for the movie. It has all this, "standing on the hill in the mountain of dreams/telling myself it's not as hard as it seems" (oh sorry, that's from the '70s so it's bad) stuff but it feels more organic.

Heh, it's funny. You'd think we could at-least drink a Coke to Superman Earth-One being a good way to reboot Superman; but we both want to keep this feud going.

Prove me wrong, Kyle. In such a way that we can both walk away with our heads held high.

This. Is. WIN.

 

[KyleDW2]

This. Is. WIN.

How, exactly?

 

[The Batman]

Because I liked it better than yours.

 

[The Batman]

Plus, he's right. Fans are trying to project their personal desires as necesscities for the new superman movie. Having a new origin isnt the only way to explain a character's motivation, and to believe so is ridiculous. Its only because its such a common way to tell comic book movies that people believe its necessary. Its like people saying the only way to have a hit song is to make it with a techno dance beat. Its not necessarily true, its just that techno dance songs have become hit singles in todays day an age.

 

[The Batman]

Plus, he's right. Fans are trying to project their personal desires as necesscities for the new superman movie. Having a new origin isnt the only way to explain a character's motivation, and to believe so is ridiculous. Its only because its such a common way to tell comic book movies that people believe its necessary. Its like people saying the only way to have a hit song is to make it with a techno dance beat. Its not necessarily true, its just that techno dance songs have become hit singles in todays day an age.

 

[KalMart]

Remember that scene in Superman Returns where he was flying all around the world and stopping disasters? That should be the opening. Establish that Superman exists and nobody knows who he is. Then, months later, in walks Clark Kent. He comes to the Daily Planet and he knows about Superman. From there on we get to find out who Clark is, why he became Superman, etc. The Batman Begins approach with a cold opening and then we move forward and backward as needs be.

Here's a loose idea I had a ways back for an opening....

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=18761534&postcount=53

Then, when we come back the that very same part of the story shortly afterwards, we actually see it, literally, through the eyes of Superman....as if we're eating lunch at the corner bar & grille, explosions start to go off around the city, we see the building with Lois on the TV or what have you....slip out the back...then we take to the air, above the skyscrapers then zipping down towards the falling debris and Lois, taking out large chunks with heat vision until we get to her right before she hits the ground.

Then cut to her opening her eyes...and that's when we first see Superman in full shot, as he holds her in mid air and gently brings her down safely to the ground, as a crowd of stunned onlookers gawk in disbelief. They don't know who he is...and just based on the movie, we don't really know who he is either...but there he is...like something out of mythology. The only thing with that is that we don't see that first shirt-rip and takeoff...but we get that a little later when the story reveals that he and Clark are the same person (i.e.. not through an origin storyline). I had this idea of him covering a skyscraper under construction as a reporter, then going up the construction elevator to avoid witnesses...and as he reaches the top, the doors open, and we get our shirt-rip, and he runs out across the support beams, shedding articles of Clark clothing as he runs towards one solitary beam that extends over the cityscape...so that first takeoff (even though not the first time he flies) is a big running leap...maybe a little slo-mo as he changes posture from a hurdle to an extended fist in mid-air...then shoots away like a rocket with a tremendous sonic boom.

 

[Motown Marvel]

So Kal, between Earth One or Birthright, which would make a better basis for the reboot?

aw man, i wouldnt want to see either of those movies. damn....even considering that is....just....it bums me out.

 

[The Batman]

^ I know, right? If this new Superman movie's gonna be based on MOS, BR, SO, FAS, STAS, etc, itll just be a disappointment to me. Some of those stories are good....but they're not amazing. I wanted to see BR at first, but even that story is toned down somewhat.

 

[KalMart]

I think they could probably take bits and pieces from various sources/versions and support a completely original cinematic take that's hopefully still Superman.

 

[Nightwing1983]

I think they could probably take bits and pieces from various sources/versions and support a completely original cinematic take that's hopefully still Superman.

Most likely, it'll ultimately have its own take; I'm just wondering which would make a better--I don't know--guideline.

 

[GreenKToo]

bits and pieces from all the best stories please.

 

[KyleDW2]

Here's a loose idea I had a ways back for an opening....

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=18761534&postcount=53

Then, when we come back the that very same part of the story shortly afterwards, we actually see it, literally, through the eyes of Superman....as if we're eating lunch at the corner bar & grille, explosions start to go off around the city, we see the building with Lois on the TV or what have you....slip out the back...then we take to the air, above the skyscrapers then zipping down towards the falling debris and Lois, taking out large chunks with heat vision until we get to her right before she hits the ground.

Then cut to her opening her eyes...and that's when we first see Superman in full shot, as he holds her in mid air and gently brings her down safely to the ground, as a crowd of stunned onlookers gawk in disbelief. They don't know who he is...and just based on the movie, we don't really know who he is either...but there he is...like something out of mythology. The only thing with that is that we don't see that first shirt-rip and takeoff...but we get that a little later when the story reveals that he and Clark are the same person (i.e.. not through an origin storyline). I had this idea of him covering a skyscraper under construction as a reporter, then going up the construction elevator to avoid witnesses...and as he reaches the top, the doors open, and we get our shirt-rip, and he runs out across the support beams, shedding articles of Clark clothing as he runs towards one solitary beam that extends over the cityscape...so that first takeoff (even though not the first time he flies) is a big running leap...maybe a little slo-mo as he changes posture from a hurdle to an extended fist in mid-air...then shoots away like a rocket with a tremendous sonic boom.

You know one of the reasons I want an origin story? Look at the scene you just described. The crowd in awe at what Superman is, what he is doing. That scene has much more impact if nobody yet knows anything about Superman. If it takes place after Superman has been around a while, the crowd will act like Superman is old hat. He'll still be amazing, but he'll have a been-there-done-that feeling. And the last thing we need for Superman, especially after Returns and its devotion to the past, is for Superman to feel old hat. Let's have the crowd's reaction mirror the reaction of the audience. That would be, in part, the shot in the arm Superman needs.

 

[Nightwing1983]

It is fun to brainstorm ways to represent the origin in a new way, and if that really is the goal, then more power to them.

 

[KalMart]

You know one of the reasons I want an origin story? Look at the scene you just described. The crowd in awe at what Superman is, what he is doing. That scene has much more impact if nobody yet knows anything about Superman. If it takes place after Superman has been around a while, the crowd will act like Superman is old hat. He'll still be amazing, but he'll have a been-there-done-that feeling. And the last thing we need for Superman, especially after Returns and its devotion to the past, is for Superman to feel old hat. Let's have the crowd's reaction mirror the reaction of the audience. That would be, in part, the shot in the arm Superman needs.

That's one of the reasons why I DON'T want an origin story....in terms of growing up on the farm, coming from Krypton, etc.. So hopefully we can view the character as more mysterious and unfamiliar. But they have to start with making the superhero part not the same old-hat. I think a big part of that, along with new action/situation ideas, is up to the skill of the filmmaker and the kind of cinematic momentum/scope he can bring to the picture.

It could still be an 'origin' of sorts, in terms of introducing Superman into his fictional world for the first time, if you will.

 

[KyleDW2]

It could still be an 'origin' of sorts, in terms of introducing Superman into his fictional world for the first time, if you will.

That's actually what I want. I see his origin as the origin of Superman, his first year as a costumed adventurer. We can see his other stuff in flashbacks. Like after his first time out as Superman he goes back to the family farm and they're having dinner and they keep bringing up moments of Clark's childhood. Like when the bull ran over him or when he first found out he could fly by crashing through the roof of his room. He could also show that he has no idea about his origin through talking with his parents, thus meaning that we don't even need to show his Kryptonian origins.

So yeah, we don't need to see the origin of Clark Kent. But maybe, the origin of Superman? That could work.

 

[KalMart]

That's actually what I want. I see his origin as the origin of Superman, his first year as a costumed adventurer. We can see his other stuff in flashbacks. Like after his first time out as Superman he goes back to the family farm and they're having dinner and they keep bringing up moments of Clark's childhood. Like when the bull ran over him or when he first found out he could fly by crashing through the roof of his room. He could also show that he has no idea about his origin through talking with his parents, thus meaning that we don't even need to show his Kryptonian origins.

So yeah, we don't need to see the origin of Clark Kent. But maybe, the origin of Superman? That could work.

Instead of flashbacks, use it as a broader parallel to the main plot of the sequel...tying in the main villain of the story to his origins on Krypton and maybe even his discovering what he was as a child in Smallville. Kinda' 'Godfather II'-like, or both prequel and sequel at the same time. They'll have much more dramatic license to dig deeper into it once the hero part's a big hit after the first film. Maybe even add a bit of a twist to what Clark/Supes believed about himself, and so on.

 

[Nightwing1983]

You know one of the reasons I want an origin story? Look at the scene you just described. The crowd in awe at what Superman is, what he is doing. That scene has much more impact if nobody yet knows anything about Superman. If it takes place after Superman has been around a while, the crowd will act like Superman is old hat. He'll still be amazing, but he'll have a been-there-done-that feeling. And the last thing we need for Superman, especially after Returns and its devotion to the past, is for Superman to feel old hat. Let's have the crowd's reaction mirror the reaction of the audience. That would be, in part, the shot in the arm Superman needs.

There are many familiar fatal flaws in this and I'll repeat them right here.

1) The problem with Superman Returns wasn't the "devotion to the past" (ooooh noooo!) but rather the lack of a decent opponent, the lack of fights, the effed-up timeline where he was gone for five years, the bad version of his costume, and him turning out to be a deadbeat dad.

2) If there are sequels, eventually he will have "been around for a while," so what's your suggestion for when they get to that point?

3) The mere fact that Superman does super-feats may seem old-hat to people, but what about retelling the origin? I know your default response is, "but it's only been in one movie," but even if you ignore the rather obscure serial and '50s film (the pilot to the TV series that was released theatrically) the fact is that it's been retold countless times in countless venues, be it on TV, in children's books, comics (yes, they count) and cartoons. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it (despite the picture you're trying to paint) I'm just saying people can find it "old-hat" as well.

But there's three brand-spanking new fatal flaws here.

4) Forget Superman: the idea of a young, studly superhero battling evil whether it's his first adventure or not has been done on the big-screen. Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc. Even in comic book circles among some comic-readers, Superman is seen that way, in-spite of the countless reboots. Why would it be different in films?

5) Having said that, if Superman existed in real-life, the term "old-hat" simply would not apply. Inside the movie, he's not an entertainer anyway; but even so, if he's been around so long and saved so many lives, and people know not to fear him; they'd be in even MORE "awe," because he's such a legend.

6) And having said THAT, you're talking about the people in the movie. That's not the same as the people in the audience. You say you want them to "mirror the reaction of the audience," but that's arrogant because it assumes the audience IS in such a state of awe. Now, maybe they would be; but a) not necessarily because it's his first adventure, and b) sometimes that can actually HURT the audience reaction. Heck, some superheroes are popular BECAUSE everyone in the movie hates them. "Oh, I don't want tha..." oh me neither. I'm just afraid that if I said that, I'd be too "devoted to the past."

Now, I really hope you're not going to try and twist this into "boy, I sure don't want them to do that." I'm just showing that this "awe" can happen whether Superman's 18 or 80 and that you have a tendency to make certain assumptions about the audience.

After-all, it sometimes seems like you expect people to care just because it's a reboot.

 

[Octoberist]

In Goyer's introduction, does he include the 'date' he wrote it? I'm curious since he was half way done with the script when he submitted it in.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm making a bold assumption here and that is that you're even remotely interested in hearing my point-of-view rather than playing sheriff.

Just gonna say that I definitely am interesting in your point of you

Plus, he's right. Fans are trying to project their personal desires as necesscities for the new superman movie. Having a new origin isnt the only way to explain a character's motivation, and to believe so is ridiculous. Its only because its such a common way to tell comic book movies that people believe its necessary. Its like people saying the only way to have a hit song is to make it with a techno dance beat. Its not necessarily true, its just that techno dance songs have become hit singles in todays day an age.

Nobody is saying it's the only way. It's just some of us would like to see one thing and some of us would like to see another.

Myself, and from what i've read so far Kyle, would like to see the origin of Superman. Not the origin of Clark Kent, not his life story, or the history of Krypton. But the origin of becoming the hero.

^ I know, right? If this new Superman movie's gonna be based on MOS, BR, SO, FAS, STAS, etc, itll just be a disappointment to me. Some of those stories are good....but they're not amazing. I wanted to see BR at first, but even that story is toned down somewhat.

See you've just named some of my favourite Superman stories of all time. Which simply shows me that absolutely nothing that they do with a new Superman film is going to please everyone. At this point, it's like keeping your fingers crossed that the director sees things your way, and not the other guys way. But neither is wrong.

That's one of the reasons why I DON'T want an origin story....in terms of growing up on the farm, coming from Krypton, etc.. So hopefully we can view the character as more mysterious and unfamiliar. But they have to start with making the superhero part not the same old-hat. I think a big part of that, along with new action/situation ideas, is up to the skill of the filmmaker and the kind of cinematic momentum/scope he can bring to the picture.

It could still be an 'origin' of sorts, in terms of introducing Superman into his fictional world for the first time, if you will.

That's actually what I want. I see his origin as the origin of Superman, his first year as a costumed adventurer. We can see his other stuff in flashbacks. Like after his first time out as Superman he goes back to the family farm and they're having dinner and they keep bringing up moments of Clark's childhood. Like when the bull ran over him or when he first found out he could fly by crashing through the roof of his room. He could also show that he has no idea about his origin through talking with his parents, thus meaning that we don't even need to show his Kryptonian origins.

So yeah, we don't need to see the origin of Clark Kent. But maybe, the origin of Superman? That could work.

I agree with all of this, especially the bolded parts. Personally I would prefer to avoid the kryptonian heritage part of the Superman story until the second film. Establish him as a hero first, and then upset that established order with a villain like Brainiac, who can make Clark face the truth of his origin.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I simply don't see how a film without the origin of SUPERMAN (not the farm stuff, not the krypton stuff) would even work. I really don't see how a new story can be told on the back of all the baggage that comes with it without ANYTHING that tells us this is going to be different.

There are many familiar fatal flaws in this and I'll repeat them right here.

1) The problem with Superman Returns wasn't the "devotion to the past" (ooooh noooo!) but rather the lack of a decent opponent, the lack of fights, the effed-up timeline where he was gone for five years, the bad version of his costume, and him turning out to be a deadbeat dad.

IMO all of those problems (apart from the costume) stemmed from them trying to fit in with the style of the old movies. They wanted a storyline that connected it like a sequel... and came up with the kid. They wanted a Lex that was just like Hackmans... and thats why we got a lack of a decent opponent. They wanted the 'love story', to copy the flying through the night scenes, the rooftop scenes etc... and so we got less action and more of a 'mood peice'.

3) The mere fact that Superman does super-feats may seem old-hat to people, but what about retelling the origin? I know your default response is, "but it's only been in one movie," but even if you ignore the rather obscure serial and '50s film (the pilot to the TV series that was released theatrically) the fact is that it's been retold countless times in countless venues, be it on TV, in children's books, comics (yes, they count) and cartoons. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it (despite the picture you're trying to paint) I'm just saying people can find it "old-hat" as well.

I'd say the only time they've ever told the origin of SUPERMAN (not the farm stuff, not the krypton stuff), as in how he decides/learns (depending on which origin you like, fortress or self discovery), is in television. Lois and Clark and Smallville. And they each told completely different stories. Because that's what's possible with the Superman mythos... there are so many different ways you can tell the story of how he becomes Superman and how people react to him, that having done it twice on television and never in the films (unless you count flying in and out of an ice castle) I really don't think it's old hat.

4) Forget Superman: the idea of a young, studly superhero battling evil whether it's his first adventure or not has been done on the big-screen. Batman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, etc. Even in comic book circles among some comic-readers, Superman is seen that way, in-spite of the countless reboots. Why would it be different in films?

Batman Begins. Spiderman. Iron Man. Argueably the 3 most succesful Superhero movies of my time. All have the origin of the HERO. Not the childhood (other than flashbacks). But the origin of what led to them putting on a costume and saving the world. Because that's where the story begins.

I'm afraid I don't see how you can use those heroes as reasons to support your anti-origin opinion.

5) Having said that, if Superman existed in real-life, the term "old-hat" simply would not apply. Inside the movie, he's not an entertainer anyway; but even so, if he's been around so long and saved so many lives, and people know not to fear him; they'd be in even MORE "awe," because he's such a legend.

If Superman had been around for a few years now, and I lived in Metropolis and had seen him flying overhead several times a week... I don't think i'd still be staring up at the sky and pointing and clapping every time. Tourists might. Or you might if you saw him doing something particularly heroic.

I would prefer to see that initial reaction. That shock, mixed with fear, and how Superman eventually wins the trust of the public to become someone they regard with awe.

6) And having said THAT, you're talking about the people in the movie. That's not the same as the people in the audience. You say you want them to "mirror the reaction of the audience," but that's arrogant because it assumes the audience IS in such a state of awe. Now, maybe they would be; but a) not necessarily because it's his first adventure, and b) sometimes that can actually HURT the audience reaction. Heck, some superheroes are popular BECAUSE everyone in the movie hates them. "Oh, I don't want tha..." oh me neither. I'm just afraid that if I said that, I'd be too "devoted to the past."

I completely agree that audiences seem to connect more with heroes that have a tough time of it with the 'public' of their world. Spiderman is wanted by the police. Batman is wanted by the police. The X-Men are hated for being mutants.

But that's why I think it should be an important part of the story, as to why he decides to not wear a mask. It should be about HOW he avoids the stigma of being a 'vigilante' or even something more dangerous.

Now, I really hope you're not going to try and twist this into "boy, I sure don't want them to do that." I'm just showing that this "awe" can happen whether Superman's 18 or 80 and that you have a tendency to make certain assumptions about the audience.

After-all, it sometimes seems like you expect people to care just because it's a reboot.

You may shoot me for saying this, but IMO there are some people who will watch the movie just because it's a reboot... just to see what they've done differently.