Superman Reboot Writers Workshop

[Freddy_Krueger]

In Rocky II, how did they up the ante? Clubber Lang killed Apollo Creed.

I think you're thinking of Rocky IV and Ivan Drago.

"If he dies, he dies."

 

[El Payaso]

YOu know, I thought the fighitng in BB was really effective, b/c cinematically Nolan portrayed how Batman CAN take down many men at a time b/c his techniques make him elusive and hard to see and you can't quite pin down what he's doing, where he is or how many people he is.

I thought it was very effective.

In SR, we know how Superman lifts things...

And save planes, and save people falling, and catch big signs, and blows giant fireballs, and rescue a yatch, etc.

For the sake of not discussing BB's action forever, let's accept it worked for Batman.

Let's see the plane sequence done with a bunch of blurry shots instead of the masterpiece it was.

That is why Superman's reboot doesn't need to be ala Batman Begins.

 

[SuperFerret]

And save planes, and save people falling, and catch big signs, and blows giant fireballs, and rescue a yatch, etc.

For the sake of not discussing BB's action forever, let's accept it worked for Batman.

Let's see the plane sequence done with a bunch of blurry shots instead of the masterpiece it was.

That is why Superman's reboot doesn't need to be ala Batman Begins.

Call me ignorant, but I took the thread title to mean that, like Batman Begins, the Superman mythos should be boiled down to the core of the characters and start from scratch. Not that it should use the same style of cinematography.

 

[El Payaso]

Call me ignorant, but I took the thread title to mean that, like Batman Begins, the Superman mythos should be boiled down to the core of the characters and start from scratch. Not that it should use the same style of cinematography.

But that's just called "reboot." What is the "Batman Begins" part doing in there at all?

Batman Begins is far from being the first reboot in history. It is an example of it only. And thus I assumed naming that specific movie had a purpose. But apparently it was a random name.

 

[bunk]

Depends on how you define "boiled down to the core of the character".

Nolan has done a fair job of that, but Begins should by no means be used as a template or regarded as the end all, be all example.

 

[SuperFerret]

But that's just called "reboot." What is the "Batman Begins" part doing in there at all?

Batman Begins is far from being the first reboot in history. It is an example of it only. And thus I assumed naming that specific movie had a purpose. But apparently it was a random name.

Not necessarily a random name considering that other than Superman, the most widely recognized superhero is Batman.

Plus, it's not just a reboot, it's a character-driven movie, and a good film on it's own.

 

[El Payaso]

Not necessarily a random name considering that other than Superman, the most widely recognized superhero is Batman.

Plus, it's not just a reboot, it's a character-driven movie, and a good film on it's own.

Like SR.

 

[SuperFerret]

Like SR.

Character-driven, yes. Good, that's the big question. I'm not going to bash it, but I did not find SR to be a good movie.

 

[X Knight]

well, SR was more of a character-driven movie......the only problem was that I didn't care for the characters........

 

[Anita18]

well, SR was more of a character-driven movie......the only problem was that I didn't care for the characters........

Ditto. I didn't really understand any of the character's core motivations. They just weren't convincing to me.

Lois moving on was totally fine with me. It's plausible, and it added some drama to SR. (Gosh knows Luthor wasn't exactly holding up his end of the conflict..) But to pigeonhole themselves into making the boy Superman's? Gah, I can't believe they actually went with that. If there's going to be a sequel, they're going to have to deal with the kid being Superman's son and it's a very, very delicate thing to handle.

 

[mego joe]

And save planes, and save people falling, and catch big signs, and blows giant fireballs, and rescue a yatch, etc.

Yes, he lifted or held up many different things.

For the sake of not discussing BB's action forever, let's accept it worked for Batman.

Agreed

Let's see the plane sequence done with a bunch of blurry shots instead of the masterpiece it was.

I don't think it was a masterpiece...not even the most entertaining sequence in the film.

But a reboot ala Batman Begins was not referring to the cinematic techniques of shooting the film but rather rebooting the story and getting down to the essence of the character and approaching it in that way.

That is why Superman's reboot doesn't need to be ala Batman Begins.

But the story does need a reboot, otherwise a sequel would have already been greenlit and progress made, perhaps even a script. The story and continuity is what needs to be rebooted, not the cinematic techniques of shooting the action sequences.

 

[mego joe]

But that's just called "reboot." What is the "Batman Begins" part doing in there at all?

Batman Begins is far from being the first reboot in history. It is an example of it only. And thus I assumed naming that specific movie had a purpose. But apparently it was a random name.

NOt so much a name at random but an example of a great recent comic book movie that rebooted continuity from a previous film franchise and is spawing what looks to be an awsome sequel.

 

[mego joe]

Like SR.

Except SR wasn't good it was boring and complete rubbish. But yes it was driven by characters who were inacurately portrayed and extremely boring and underwhelming in almost every way imaginable.

 

[mego joe]

well, SR was more of a character-driven movie......the only problem was that I didn't care for the characters........

Exactly. Except Richard, ironically, he was likable and relatable.

 

[mego joe]

Ditto. I didn't really understand any of the character's core motivations. They just weren't convincing to me.

Lois moving on was totally fine with me. It's plausible, and it added some drama to SR. (Gosh knows Luthor wasn't exactly holding up his end of the conflict..) But to pigeonhole themselves into making the boy Superman's? Gah, I can't believe they actually went with that. If there's going to be a sequel, they're going to have to deal with the kid being Superman's son and it's a very, very delicate thing to handle.

DItto.

 

[raybia]

But Superman should also have a regal, alien in nature look. Law has that. And Superman SHOULD have innerconflicts. Go read my Superman plot outline. Law would work perfectly in that type of movie.

I have no idea who I would pick to play Clark/Superman but I've always thought the prototype should be:

Rock Hudson

Rock could also had all of the personality attributes to play both Clark and Superman.

Also he was 6'4.

Superman like it or not has been portrayed for the longest as a tall man with a well built figure.

The actor playing him doesn't and shouldn't be a body builder but he should have a solid physique just like Christopher Reeves and like Hugh Jackman or Thomas Jane.

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, he lifted or held up many different things.

Yes. Your point?

I don't think it was a masterpiece...not even the most entertaining sequence in the film.

Any reason?

But a reboot ala Batman Begins was not referring to the cinematic techniques of shooting the film but rather rebooting the story and getting down to the essence of the character and approaching it in that way.

What way? Long explainatory monologues?

But the story does need a reboot, otherwise a sequel would have already been greenlit and progress made, perhaps even a script. The story and continuity is what needs to be rebooted, not the cinematic techniques of shooting the action sequences.

The story doesn't need a reboot.

They want a reboot because of the same reason they weren't happy with SR: it didn't make as much money as they wanted.

 

[El Payaso]

NOt so much a name at random but an example of a great recent comic book movie that rebooted continuity from a previous film franchise and is spawing what looks to be an awsome sequel.

But that lacked of good action and had some corny dialogues and one-liners amongst what was supposed to be serious and realistic.

And it did 20 millions less than SR.

Oh, but it costed much less also. So execs did get the money they wanted. Green light.

 

[El Payaso]

Except SR wasn't good it was boring and complete rubbish. But yes it was driven by characters who were inacurately portrayed and extremely boring and underwhelming in almost every way imaginable.

It was good, it was boring only for average CGI action fans the characters were portrayed like in any of the previous movies, and then a little better than that..

 

[VenomsMom]

Ditto. I didn't really understand any of the character's core motivations. They just weren't convincing to me.

Lois moving on was totally fine with me. It's plausible, and it added some drama to SR. (Gosh knows Luthor wasn't exactly holding up his end of the conflict..) But to pigeonhole themselves into making the boy Superman's? Gah, I can't believe they actually went with that. If there's going to be a sequel, they're going to have to deal with the kid being Superman's son and it's a very, very delicate thing to handle.

Yes...dealing with the son seems to be what they had in mind.

 

[VenomsMom]

but I did not find SR to be a good movie.

Another broken record.....

 

[VenomsMom]

That Luthor and the swindiling old ladies thing was beyond extremely pathetic. If we're not careful of the specifics, we could get a reboot with the kid being the next Man of Steel. Horrible all around.

Luther pleasuring elderly women was just all apart of his master plan.t:

 

[Anita18]

Yes...dealing with the son seems to be what they had in mind.

I just read "Superman: What happened to the man of tomorrow?" in Alan Moore's collection of DC stories, and he hints that even though Superman is supposedly dead, he lives on in his son. Except, Moore's story was supposed to pretend that it was the last Superman story ever (it was his editor's last stint), so he didn't have to figure out the ramifications of what his story was.

 

[Krug3r]

the actor of the last Psych...season 2 episode 11...he played JAN.

 

[mego joe]

Yes. Your point?



Any reason?



What way? Long explainatory monologues?



The story doesn't need a reboot.

They want a reboot because of the same reason they weren't happy with SR: it didn't make as much money as they wanted.

The want a reboot b/c a continuation of this storyline will not meet their expectations for financial profitability. It's about $, and they know they arent' going to make any by continuing Singer's stupid story. Not all Superman fans have the low standards in storytelling and filmmaking that you do.