Superman Reboot Writers Workshop

I really hope that if and when Superman gets rebooted, they have some HARDCORE ROBOT PUNCHING ACTION! :word:
 
I'll say categoracallly you have never offended me Mega Joe, despite the fact that we have never agree on anything.

No need for an apology at all MJ.
 
CHECK THE SIG!

No, Transformers was mediocre. SR while having high production value and beautiful visually, was a HORRIBLE movie about Superman. Perhaps instead of fimmaking I should have left it with storytelling.

And I'll have you know I'm not pathetic, just passionate, and like many on this forum I sometimes get carried away.

What's pathetic is Superman as deadbeat dad. That's pathetic. (getting carried away again.)

Your opinions cool, but when it comes to discussing keep it real and talk about what is the truth. Superman didnt know he had a son therefore his absence is excuseable and critics loved it. EMPIRE called it the finest mainstream entertainment since lord of the rings.

so while you may think it was garbage, dont discuss it like it because it isnt percieved as that by most, and the when studio decides wether or not to go ahead with a sequel, your points will certainly not be on their list of cons.
 
That's why I'm so frustrated with the film to begin with. It was a beautiful movie, a gorgeous movie. Many, many people worked their butts off for months to make it look as good as it did. And the storytelling couldn't keep its end of the bargain.

In the end, filmmaking is about storytelling. If you can't tell a story convincingly with your film, then the film has essentially failed. It might as well be a series of pretty images.

I'm also frustrated cause this is the from the same director who brought us Usual Suspects, which is one of my favorite movies. It was built around the actual telling of a story, and it was fantastic. Where did Singer go wrong?

And in mine and many other people's eyes the story in SR was very enjoyable.

The main character was both god-like and relatable, and we got a story and characters than developed naturally and with talking rather than explosions.
 
And in mine and many other people's eyes the story in SR was very enjoyable.

The main character was both god-like and relatable, and we got a story and characters than developed naturally and with talking rather than explosions.
That's true. The enjoyment of a story does depend on what you bring to it. I thought Ang Lee's Hulk was yawn but many people liked it for the characterization that I just couldn't buy.

For me, many parts of SR's story just didn't connect with each other.
 
CHECK THE SIG!



Your opinions cool, but when it comes to discussing keep it real and talk about what is the truth. Superman didnt know he had a son therefore his absence is excuseable and critics loved it.

You may find it excusable, but I bet 80 percent of the audience did not find it excuseable.
EMPIRE called it the finest mainstream entertainment since lord of the rings.

That doesn't say much about LoTR then does it? What is EMPIRE?
so while you may think it was garbage, dont discuss it like it because it isnt percieved as that by most, and the when studio decides wether or not to go ahead with a sequel, your points will certainly not be on their list of cons.
I bet you're wrong.
 
If superman has to be reimagined. I do not want them to spend more then 10 minutes on origin. We know jor-el sends the baby off to earth. We know the child becomes superman. Especially with smallville around, we don't need to see this all again. I think some revisioning doesn't need to start at the beginning. Your audience can buy a 2 minute reminder of where superman comes from. Lets start at the meat of the story.
 
finest mainstream entertainment since LOTR??............rrrrriiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttt...........

oh, and why does it seem that whenever we SR "haters" espouse our opinions and call the film garbage, there are some ppl here saying that we can't discuss it like that, cuz that's not what the "majority" thinks.

well, quite frankly, I don't give a care what the majority of ppl think. If i think a movie is crap....then I'm going to call it crap or garbage. And I have every right to do that......just like ppl who love the movie can call it masterpiece.............meow.
 
You may find it excusable, but I bet 80 percent of the audience did not find it excuseable.


That doesn't say much about LoTR then does it? What is EMPIRE?

I bet you're wrong.

Empire is a very popular movie magazine, and it did indeed call SR that, and it also gave LOTR stellar reviews (which they deserved because they are all amazing).
 
I have no idea who I would pick to play Clark/Superman but I've always thought the prototype should be:

Rock Hudson

21dvd.600.jpg


01014.jpg


rhudson_150x207.jpg


RockHudson13.jpg


Rock%20Hudson03.jpg


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.

Yeah, he had the looks to play Supes (but since he was gay, I'm glad he never played the role, thank God), but if you ask me, Brandon Routh looks a lot like him, IMO. Brandon has this Greek god-like classic look, perfect for Superman.
And Christopher Reeve was actually a skinny guy when he was not working out, just like Brandon.
 
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.

Exaaaaaaaactly, El Payaso. IMO BB is so overrated by its fans who don't want to see its faults, and I like the film a lot actually, but as a casual movie goer that I was (before SR), I think BB is good but kinda boring at times. It needed some more high points in order to excite me. And the music was good but generic, I mean I can't remember it. On the other hand, SR is much more exciting and inspiring for me, even with its faults (which are very minor in my view, so I don't care).
 
I think a Superman reboot is a great idea. But right now is just not the right time. I'd like to see the story from Superman Returns come to a conclusion and see Brandon Routh's Superman team up with other heroes before a reboot is done.
 
Yeah, he had the looks to play Supes (but since he was gay, I'm glad he never played the role, thank God), but if you ask me, Brandon Routh looks a lot like him, IMO. Brandon has this Greek god-like classic look, perfect for Superman.
What does him being gay have to do with anything? If he's a good actor, it won't matter. Unless you're talking about the backlash, blah blah blah. Heath Ledger is still getting heat for his Brokeback Mountain role, and he's straight. :whatever:

Brandon had the right features, but he still had a bit of a babyface. A bit too pretty. But I think he's pretty damn close to a real-life Superman.
 
finest mainstream entertainment since LOTR??............rrrrriiiiiiiiigggghhhhhtttt...........

oh, and why does it seem that whenever we SR "haters" espouse our opinions and call the film garbage, there are some ppl here saying that we can't discuss it like that, cuz that's not what the "majority" thinks.

well, quite frankly, I don't give a care what the majority of ppl think. If i think a movie is crap....then I'm going to call it crap or garbage. And I have every right to do that......just like ppl who love the movie can call it masterpiece.............meow.

Right on just because a lot of people like something dose not make me have to like it, and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it. Sometimes I wonder if critics get a little bonus to help push the big movies by the studios.
 
At least Batman is helping Superman. If there will be a sequel to SR, we can thank Nolan and Bale :)
 
What does him being gay have to do with anything? If he's a good actor, it won't matter. Unless you're talking about the backlash, blah blah blah. Heath Ledger is still getting heat for his Brokeback Mountain role, and he's straight. :whatever:

Brandon had the right features, but he still had a bit of a babyface. A bit too pretty. But I think he's pretty damn close to a real-life Superman.

Your analogy of a gay actor playing Superman and Heath Ledger's gay role don't work actually, IMO, at all. It is much more controversial and just plain unacceptable for a gay actor to play Superman, who is and All-Man American icon and a legend, than a straight actor playing a gay man, which is not so uncommon anymore. Speaking for myself, I could never accept a gay actor playing this iconic character of Superman. The magic of the character would be totally lost, IMO. It's simple Biology 101. But just to be clear, I have nothing against gays, I respect them. :word:
 
The magic of the character would be totally lost, IMO. It's simple Biology 101. But just to be clear, I have nothing against gays, I respect them. :word:
It's a silly idea to use biology in a conversation with me since I am a biologist. :oldrazz: And your argument has nothing to do with biology - it's culture and social training.

I do respect your opinion though, and that you realize that it is your opinion. To me, it doesn't matter what someone does in their bedroom as long as what they do in public is good.
 
Right on just because a lot of people like something dose not make me have to like it, and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it. Sometimes I wonder if critics get a little bonus to help push the big movies by the studios.
I've wondered that myself.
 
Right on just because a lot of people like something dose not make me have to like it, and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it.

Certainly. that's why other people expressing their opinions shouldn't be felt as exasperating.

and by the way the majority of people I personally asked who saw SR did NOT like it.

A very reliable statistical study I assume.

Sometimes I wonder if critics get a little bonus to help push the big movies by the studios.

Well, if people are disagreeing with you, there has to be a secret conspiration involved.
 
What we need to do is instead of making Luthor an expert in real estate, he should be a kryptonite miner.
 
Exaaaaaaaactly, El Payaso. IMO BB is so overrated by its fans who don't want to see its faults, and I like the film a lot actually, but as a casual movie goer that I was (before SR), I think BB is good but kinda boring at times. It needed some more high points in order to excite me.

Well, I think the lousy action made the highlight to look like a bunch of blurry/shaky shots, which is what they are. I have the same problem with it, if I put the dvd on to watch the action I have to be satisfied with the Tumbler chase. The rest in simply a bunch of nothing. I can get better Batman shots even from B&R.

What annoys me the most is that BB had everything to be one of the best or even the best Bat-movie. But for me the action and some of the dialogues kept telling me "it's not that good."

And the music was good but generic, I mean I can't remember it.

While this is true when applied to the movie, I very much recommend you to listen to the music only. I ahve many times and IMO it's a very very good soundtrack. It has lots of atmosphere and evoking moments.

On the other hand, SR is much more exciting and inspiring for me, even with its faults (which are very minor in my view, so I don't care).

I think the same. And I'm a Batman fan before anything.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"