Discussion in 'Upcoming Superman Solo Movie' started by flickchick85, Sep 12, 2018.
JJ Abrams is so darn boring. Saying no to McQuarrie but yes to JJ would be such a step down.
Other way around, especially in the realm of dramatic direction. McQuarrie is great for old-school Seagal type movies.
Personally I think Abrams is less about being boring and more about just being shallow when it comes to story-telling.
I'm all for Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeeley writing Superman. So much is made of the director for obvious reasons but the various Superman scripts have been weak over the years. Markus and McFeeley have been solid and would interest me.
abrams has a direct hand in all the scripts he directs, so it really wouldn't matter
abrams is the "safest" choice from a studio perspective, and the fact that WB did just pay half a BILLION(!) to for the bad robot deal, they'll want to recoup that investment. but i think they're over-correcting to undo the snyderverse mistakes. abrams doesn't bring anything new to the table like mcq would
J.J. Abrams for the first film of a reboot trilogy. A straightforward crowd-pleaser that gets audiences interested in Supes again.
Chris McQuarrie for the 2nd, more ambitious and daring sequel.
Patty Jenkins for the more classical, emotionally satisfying closing installment.
There, I solved it!
I see McQuarrie in same league as Martin Campbell, more suited to James Bond/ MI/ Bourne Identity type movies.
Just as Martin Campbell struggled to make a Green Lantern movie which needed creating different worlds and other CGI effects, (the movies weren't grounded), McQuarrie might find it difficult to make a GL movie.
Before anyone points out that McQuarrie did a SciFi movie (Edge of Tomorrow), let me say it was grounded for most part, except in execution of SciFi concepts.
He didn't direct Edge of Tomorrow, just wrote it. But that's neither here nor there.
I think McQuarrie is far more than a Martin Campbell-esque craftsman though, because for one, he's a writer first. And a fantastic writer at that. Dude's a born storyteller, imo, and I think he'd tell a killer Supes or GL story if ever given the chance. But that ship seems to have sailed, unfortunately.
Agreed, but Abrams movies are considered as "safe movies" that would be liked by most, which is what Superman needs right now.
Edge of Tomorrow is the exact reason why I'd say give him GL, but again it'd be for just writing.
I stand by that his dramatic shooting doesn't get the proper framing that JJ employs. If JJ needs him for setpieces that's also well and dandy.
To be fair we should be rooting for Supergirl, seriously, if the director wants Superman and the movie and both characters are hits, then Sup is gonna make his solo return.
Seems like they are actively searching for a director now, so if they film it next year and release in 2021, Sup gets good reaction,, then we could have the solo by 2024. Apparently JJ is doing originals first, so give him a couple of years and then onto Sup, good timing, and Sup can be the star going forward into JL.
See, WW, AM, HQ, Shazam and Bat would have finished their runs by 2025-27, so if they have Sup in 2024, 2026 with a different director, do a WW/AM team up in 2026, then JJ or whoever big can do that 2027 JL where the older characters can return, and Sup, Flash can finish their runs, have a two parter Darkseid saga in 2029-2030, finish it off with Infinite Crisis/Flashpoint combined or something, then reboot or multiverse it for a new cast while farewell the old, that'd be a near 20 year run, and maximizing the most out of their resources
Damn, I grew old just reading that.
But, yes, I hope Supergirl really does well. I like the character too. There's a lot they can do here for both Supergirl and Superman, separately and together.
Although WB have to be careful that Superman doesn't get caught up in another JL teamup movie plan at the expense of his solos.
I like McQuarrie overall but less so for Superman especially if he was going to do a story of the burden of absolute power as possibly hinted by Cavill. I've had enough of the weight of the world is on my shoulders for the entire two hour duration and eventually coming to grips with who you are in the last scene.
I think there must be others who could do a better job of that.
I feel like safe is kind of what landed us where we are. For all the razzle and dazzle, MOS just rearranged the deck chairs.
Begins ran out of steam with the Batman half(similar to First Avenger) but the Bruce Wayne traveling, learning, and messing up was something we'd never seen before.
Changing how Pa Kent died didn't give people a reason to go, wow! I've never seen that in a Superman movie before. Lifting a plane/island vs lifting an oil rig?
Krypton? Seen it.
Zod? Seen it.
Lois and Clark? Seen it.
Snyder's done a good job with the visuals so they don't have that card to pull now.
Lol, well, Gadot still looks good =P
That's why I put down Sup in 2024 and 2026, get his arc together before teaming up with others, the pieces actually fall into place, hope they utilize the opportunity and play the long game.....
Aranofsky to me has always been a mixed filmmaker of extremes so no I dont think the analogy fits at all
McQuarrie has a pretty impressive track record, is an excellent writer with a brilliant eye for action, it would have been thrilling to see his ideas for a superman and GL film. WB are also the ones who took on Zack Snyder’s highly divisive vision fully on board and then did a completely **** job in course correction. I would have loved to hear McQuarrie’s take on things and even without knowing them would place a massive bet that it would have been kick ass and trust it far more than WB’s ****ty decision making ability on recent comicbook movies
Definitely agree with your post there—which makes it hard to come up with a new original concept for a Superman movie.
We've seen Clark Kent as a reporter on Lois & Clark, "teenage" Clark Kent growing up to Superman on Smallville, an early formative Superman on STAS, and an established Superman on JL/JLU and more recently on the CW. And with Snyder, we finally got a modern ass-kicking Superman punching some supervillains on the big screen, so we've seen that now too.
I guess if you want to ignore the animated material, the only thing we haven't really seen from a live-action Superman yet is one that'd borrow somewhat from STAS/JL/JLU and give us a neo-futuristic "City of Tomorrow"-type Metropolis. All of the live-action stuff so far has been set in "present day" which is fine, but boring. A new series of Superman movies set in a quasi-believable future world (not too much unlike in movies such as Minority Report, I Robot, or Robocop 2014) instead might be able to provide the creative jolt that a Superman movie needs. If it worked on Timm's DCAU, I'd think it should be able to work on live action!
A well-established, neo-futuristic, and space-faring Superman for the next series of movies? That'd certainly make it a lot easier to introduce other characters too, including a re-introduction of the Green Lantern Corps, which would be awesome. Plus we could also get stuff like Lex Luthor in his power suit, or Lex Luthor as President, a really badass sci-fi'd Metallo, or even just Intergang with high-powered weapons trying to take down Superman and occasionally succeeding.
The only other idea I can think of would be an aged "Kingdom Come" Superman, but that obviously needs some build-up, which WB hasn't been able to pull off yet.
Honestly, either JJ or McQuarrie would be a godsend after Snyder and Terrio (and Whedon and Goyer?) ran the character into the ground. I agree with Starman that we've seen enough of "weight of the world" Superman. Cavill did that fairly well I guess but even he had Daniel Day Lewis-level talent (and he doesn't) you can only go so far down that road before the character becomes unbearable. Superman isn't Dr. Manhattan. At the end of the day, he's compassionate and LIKES doing the right thing. He doesn't view humanity as his eternal pain in the ass.
DCEU Superman never viewed humanity as a pain in the ass. He did like doing the right thing. Lois even said she could tell that just from his record of secret saves. I think you are confusing Clark's disappointment with himself with disappointment in humanity. Clark took a leap of faith on humanity in MoS, and he chose humanity over Krypton. In BvS, after the Capitol bombing, he wanted to help. It was humanity that asked him to leave. He died for them anyway.
What Snyder and his team did for their Superman trilogy was to move him through a series of obstacles that tested him in order for the character to emerge in JL as secure in his mission and his role in the world. It was a classic monomythic cycle. If you didn't like it and didn't enjoy seeing Superman challenged in that way, that's fine. I get it. I just don't understand these hyperbolic, and frankly, dubious criticisms of his story.
I guess "I didn't interpret it correctly." Thank you, O Wise One, for enlightening me once again.
LMAO sorry this is too good! I had milk bursting through my nose when I read this
Can you, once again, enlighten me as to where in Snyder's films does Superman express any disdain or annoyance with humanity? I am open to shifting my thinking, but I need to know what it is that is shaping your point of view. Otherwise, I am just stuck with the films themselves, which explicitly have Superman and those who know him best expressing an unquestioning belief that he would do anything, including sending his own people to a galactic prison and dying at the hands of a mutated death monster, to preserve and protect mankind, even if mankind hated him.
I mean everything is on the table. Especially in a Batman Beyond type story would be cool.
I think the easier way might be to follow what Marvel did with Homecoming movies vs the Garfield Spidey films.
Modernize the character but don’t retread the same material people are most familiar with. The changes you make should come from the larger tapestry of story you are trying to weave.
Like for start let’s actually see Clark and Lois build their careers instead of being in the middle of or already there. Clark interviews for the Planet and doesn’t get it. Lois is on the bottom rung of the Planet staff.
You know it isnt everyone's job to justify to you why they feel a character was portrayed in such a way. And it isnt your job to justify a film to everyone either. They saw Superman in the DCEU one way and you saw it another. You both can be right. Part of the way you can tell there was a flaw in how he has been portrayed so far is that there is a large segment of the people who saw the film (especially the general audience) saw the character as they just described it. A better director and writer doesnt make half the people who saw the film see Superman as such.