Superman on film - the bigger picture.

It can be brought back, but it has to be done the right way, and I think Singer and company took the wrong route.

Everyone freaked out at what Burton and Abrams were trying to do, but at least they were trying to do something new.

The point is, someone could have taken their work as a starting point, and then changed things about to make it more acceptable. I draw the comparison of James Cameron's Spider-Man scriptment, which if you've ever read it, is horrible. But Rami took that as the basis for the Spider-Man movie, he changed alot of things, and that movie made close to 400 million.

I think someone could have taken the Abrams script, changed the objectionable material (i.e. Krypton not being destroyed, Lex Luthor being an alien), and gone forward with it.

There have been so many different interpretations of Superman, that a fresh approach could have been taken. Look at the difference between the George Reves TV series, the movies with Christopher Reeve, the Lois and Clark TV series, and Smallville.

There are so many differnet routes that could have been taken, but instead, Singer is carpet bagging off the success of a 30 year old movie. I just don't think it's gonna work. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Wait til you see how it does in theatres before you jump to a conclusion. For all we know it could stink balls. And Singer really isn't taking any new risks. He's just rehashing what Donner did 20 years ago.

 

Only, it won't.

 

Yes, it will.

 

the trailer is out. the fans are still split. what do you think?

 

How can it be considered carpetbagging when it not only has the blessing of the studio but also Dick Donner, the original director?

 

They should have gone with a supervillian. A tragic figure that is being manipulated by Luthor to fight Superman. That would have been sweet.

 

The sequel, my friend. This one is about Superman/Clark/Kal-El/Mork From Ork having to reckon with a force stronger than any villian or Kryptonite: His own heart. This is gonna be a hell of a flick, and after seeing the trailer, I can honestly say, I think the kid is gonna bring a lot to the story. Something that doesn't necessarily need to be included years down the road from now, as Mentok said. I mean, Clark married Lois in the comics and on L&C, and you don't see that in this film. You don't see any of Clark's ties with Lex and Lois from Smallville in this film. It's just another interpretation, and if you don't like it, Christopher Reeve starred in 4 wonderful movies a couple decades ago. Stick to those until "Superman Begins" comes out in 2025.

 

Even if it does go that route I doubt Singer and his band of hack writers will be able to successfully pull it off with any emotional resonance. Just look at the X-men films, they were chock full of bland, self-referential dialogue that constantly reminded you that you were watching a comicbook movie. There was no depth behind any of it. From the trailer, it looks like SR will be the same way.

 

Well that's a new one. The one thing I've read about most in the X-boards is that Singer's X-Men didn't respect enough that it was a comicbook movie. And the only two instances of self-referential dialogue I can recall was Cyclops' crack about wearing yellow spandex and Logan making fun of their codenames.

 

Mentok, you seem to be under the impression that Superman "needs" a movie, that there is some sort of imperative that he be featured in a hollywood movie. That simply isn't the case. Most Superman fans are happy because of the comic books made about him. We don't have to wait 30 years between stories like the casual fans do.

Instead of holding your breath waiting for directors and actors to bring their versions of the mythos to the screen, why don't you go buy a comic book?

 

I wouldn't worry whether the movie fails or not (I don't think it will). Superman is a cultural icon. T Kirk Alyn, George Reeves, STM, Lois&Clark STAS Smalville and SR prove that here will always be new depictions of Superman in different mediums, just like there'll always be a Tarzan a Zorro a Dracula etc. 30 years from now we'll be arguing about a new version of Superman not respectful of the Singer tradition. Who knows.

 

Co-sizzle

 

what you waiting around for go now damn it

 

There are so many great and imaginative things that can be done with Superman, and Singer rehash's old material. Expalin to me again why this guy is so talented??????????? Look I trust Singer to know that the movie won't suck, but nothing nbew is going to be brought to the table.

 

it boggles my mind mjb. boggles it good.

He already knows he's not alone because of zod and his crew who all got sucked into his fortress or some **** so why the long journey to a bunch of space debris that used to be krypton? In all, why go back to krypton period. what's there to see?

Moriarty knows.........tell us mo......tell us that everything REALLy ties back to smallville, ok maybe not since the ma kent is so old but I wish it did.

 

Kryptonite gives people powers, yeah, thats a great element established I want to see on the big screen. And instead of stalking and obsessing about Lois, let's see him do the same thing with Lana Lang for 5+ years! Go Smallville, the only good thing done with Superman.



"Sombody SSSSAAAAAAaavve meeeeee!!!!!"

 

What's wrong with kryptonite giving people powers? It's a hell of a rock.

 

CRAPPY ASS THEME SONG

It is a Show about the guy who in the end becomes Superman. Id have prefer there be a Score Track during the Titles or just the Title Smallville & then Credits in the beginning of an Episode

 

Nothing if you want to rename the substance "Plotdevice". Not only does it give clark radioactive food posioning, but It makes the nerdy computer geek control over electricity and remove girls panties with a thought. Its like Scott Baio's Zapped movie mixed with Superman lore. Good stuff.