Bullseye said:
I feel that Alex Ross' depiction of Superman is iconic and I would hope that the next time around the filmaker of a Superman film will adapt Ross' Superman to the big screen.
If not the precise look of Superman (I do think Ross' version looks just slightly too old for a "present" story, rather than a 'Kingdom Come' type storyline), then at least get the same sense of majesty and greatness you get from Ross' paintings. But yeah, you've definitely got the right idea.
In your opinion Herr Logan, who is the ideal actor for Superman?
I honestly don't know. I just know he has to look unequivocally like Superman has traditionally looked. That includes being tall, broad, muscled like a Roman gladiator and looking like a
man, preferably in his mid-thirties (unless it's another "beginning" story and he's fresh out of college or something).
Anyone with enough acting experience to be cast in any movie but isn't being cast based on raw sex appeal, nepotism (who your relatives are) or cronyism (who your friends are) and who fits the above description. This precludes Tom Welling and Brandon Routh.
To tell you the truth, I think that, of the candidates that were being considered, I probably would have voted for Brendan Fraser. He has the look, no longer looks like a teenager or college-age guy, and I know he can act well when the script is decent.
I don't know what plot I'd write for an ideal and faithful Superman movie, but I know for sure that I would be far more reserved with this than with the other properties in terms of adding layers and straddling the line between versimilitude and pure fantasy. I'll freely admit to being open to a certain degree of change for most of the other superhero properties I've considered-- not nearly as open as the seeming majority of forum users here are, but open enough to change certain major events (leaving out the first and final parts of the X-Men's Phoenix Saga) and some major costumes (the original X-Men's, Wolverine's) a little bit when I think it's a better fit for a movie's timeframe and aesthetic medium. I've chosen to emphasize certain elements of certain characters in various properties that haven't been explored much in TV and movie adaptations. That wouldn't be true for Superman, at least as far as his personality/psychology, early history or physical appearance.
There would be absolutely no "signature" changes to the costume, for one thing. After seeing the movie or spoiler pics, nobody would refer to the costume used as the "Herr Logan suit" as one might refer to the 'Superman Returns' costume as the "Singer suit" or "Routh suit." It's simply a matter of picking the best and most recognizable version of the classic design and not trying to sex it up or darken it up. It would be bright, bold and iconic, not a dark burgundy cloak and a skimpy bikini. Some people think that costume is "dated" or "cheesy." Those people can go **** themselves if they think that's any reason to change it. Newsflash, people:
Superman is "dated" and "cheesy," so either accept him as he is or don't talk about what you want to see in a Superman movie.
There would be no Earth-shattering changes or additions to the mythos. No new love interests, no completely out-of-character actions (leaving the Earth for 5 years on a whim when he still had business to take care of), and absolutely no God damn Superbabies! I'd be okay with moving forward from current continuity (whatever that is... I don't read Superman regularly... hell, I haven't read any comics in months), but not if it takes it in a ridiculous direction laden with shock value. I basically wouldn't do anything, as a director, producer or writer, that would make me stand out much as far as Superman filmmakers go. This isn't a place to mess around and $hit on great American icons to stroke your own ego... it's Superman, God damn it. If you think he's boring the way he is in the comics, find another superhero movie to make, because there's no excuse for messing with this.
Well, perhaps it would be note-worthy for me to go back to Superman's thematic roots and portray him as someone who is not entirely beloved by or loving of the local and federal governments. Superman was a wish fulfillment fantasy laden with undertones of social commentary. Green Arrow is certainly a more blatant example, but Superman was also a figure who stepped in and served and protected people who weren't being protected or served by those charged with that duty.
I'm not sure how I'd do this, and I'd certainly be careful not to make him come off like Frank Miller's Batman-- a fed-up, no-nonsense revolutionary who'd sooner see the system crash altogether than to change his methods at the law's command-- but this is a theme I could see myself attempting that hasn't been attempted in a movie yet. I'd be just as comfortable with having Superman be the government's sweetheart and even a deputized member of the Metropolis Police Department. Just know that if I portrayed Superman as a person who acts when others will not act and commits acts of rebellion against legal institutions (i.e. doesn't stop fighting crime when told to, resists arrest, physically alters a piece of the environment to help people when there's a legal injunction against anyone doing it), it wouldn't be to make Superman "gritty," "dark" or more "realistic." It would be simply to explore an aspect of Superman's metafictional origins (what he did early on and what that represented for real life). He'd be just as personable and civil as he's always been, even when addressing armed police or military out to shoot him, and he wouldn't be any more violent than he is in the animated series (which is plenty violent enough, even by my action-hungry standards). I might possibly portray Metropolis and the world at large as a grittier place than in previous Superman movies, but that would only serve to make Superman even more "pure," which is fine by me.
Superman is often seen as "too perfect." Screw that. If you can't think of a way to make a decent, interesting story that involves a mostly-perfect character that's nigh-invulnerable and has more superpowers than you can count on one hand, then you aren't creative enough, or you aren't interested enough in the subject matter involved in superhero fiction. The way I see it, if there has to be a "moral of the story" in a Superman movie, it should be that humans need to learn to take a risk, swallow their pride and accept help from people-- even strangers-- occasionally when they're in need. I could just as easily make a story that says the exact opposite, using different characters, and I might agree with that one more, but since the former is a perfectly valid moral for a superhero story and is occasionally true, I'm fine with it.
The moral could go for Superman as well, and he could reveal his true identity to Lois (without subsequently delivering an "amnesia kiss," therefore taking a huge risk.
Again, I don't know what the plot would be, but it would have plenty of action, that's for damn sure. It was called "Action Comics," so don't anybody dare give me any crap about how a faithful adaptation would just be a series of "boring fights." Superman is an action hero, not the star of a "chick flick." Bryan Singer actually said,
proudly and self-satisfied, in
exact words, that 'Superman Returns' was his "first chick flick."
**** Bryan Singer. Serious, **** him and his repulsively overblown and misbegotten ego.
Thanks for posting, Bullseye. Got me thinking about this subject again after a long time of not doing so.
that covers the chest and makes the actor look impressive, and shorts that look like Chris Reeve's and not like a swimmer's bikini briefs, with a beltline that doesn't sink low and make the actor look skinny and lanky.
