• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

The Daily Planet - Superman News and Speculation Thread (🚨SPOILERS🚨)

I've been thinking, it seems likely that we're avoiding the whole origin, krypton sequence this time, so, what about having the opening credits be the pages of a comic turning, but the images we see actually move?

We see krypton. a huge city is before us, mile high buildings go off in the distance as far as the eye can see.
large ships slowly fly overhead. Page turns.

We see baby Kal. He looks up at the faces of lara and jor-el, Who are lovingly looking down at him. He slowly reaches a hand up.
Page turns.

We see jor-el before the council, with an angry look on his face. He throws a stack of papers to the floor. He turns and walks off. Page turns.

Krypton is partially on fire. Buildings are collapsing all around.
Jor-el and lara hurriedly place baby Kal in a small car sized ship.
Page turns.

We see a ship blast into space. Behind it, we see all of krypton. It suddenly explodes.
Page turns.
Etc etc.

If you wanted, you could even show his first couple of years in metropolis, Lex, supes fighting metallo, intergang, etc.

End it with Clark at the DP, and transition to live action.
Can't remember if I posted this same idea here or somewhere else, but something similar to Spider-Man 2's opening credits recapping SM1 would be awesome, imo. Already basing the Superman suit off of Alex Ross KC suit, maybe hit him up for the opening illustration too haha!
 
I think something similar to that would be cool. STM started off with a comic, pages turning.
 
The bigger issue is if James Gunn will present a toothless version of Superman to appease the general public.

We've seen that happen again and again. People hated the Jim Carrey Grinch movie, the Johnny Depp Wonka movie, the Bill Murray Garfield movies. They loved the Boris Karloff Grinch, the Gene Wilder Wonka, and the Lorenzo Music, they got offended that the creators would try to do something risky and different them. Then what happened? The studios gave in and delivered toothless, edgeless features like the Benedict Cumberbatch Grinch, the Timothee Chalamet Wonka, and the Chris Pratt Garfield. Inoffensive, without style or creativity or risks, and people accepted them because they don't like anything new. They were very similar to the versions they grew up with.

My fear is that Gunn will try to emulate the Reeve Superman and not try to do something risky like Snyder did for Cavill's Superman.
 
I think Gunn has made it clear through most of his statements that this is a unique superman we haven't seen. Gunn seems to have a flavor all his own when he's adapting characters so I can see his statements ringing true.
 
The bigger issue is if James Gunn will present a toothless version of Superman to appease the general public.

We've seen that happen again and again. People hated the Jim Carrey Grinch movie, the Johnny Depp Wonka movie, the Bill Murray Garfield movies. They loved the Boris Karloff Grinch, the Gene Wilder Wonka, and the Lorenzo Music, they got offended that the creators would try to do something risky and different them. Then what happened? The studios gave in and delivered toothless, edgeless features like the Benedict Cumberbatch Grinch, the Timothee Chalamet Wonka, and the Chris Pratt Garfield. Inoffensive, without style or creativity or risks, and people accepted them because they don't like anything new. They were very similar to the versions they grew up with.

My fear is that Gunn will try to emulate the Reeve Superman and not try to do something risky like Snyder did for Cavill's Superman.
Something being "risky" doesn't automatically makes it good, nor anything being "safe" automatically makes it bad.
 
I ain’t worried about that in the slightest. Gunn’s got a distinctive voice for better or worse and this movie will certainly reflect that. I’m just hoping he keeps the core attributes of Superman intact that Snyder clearly missed. At least he’s shown that he knows what those are, so I have faith he knows the character needs them.
 
Something being "risky" doesn't automatically makes it good, nor anything being "safe" automatically makes it bad.
It's not a matter of quality. It's about ambition and imagination. Those 4 movies I've mentioned may have been polarizing but they at least tried to give a new take. Stories last forever because they can be reinterpreted in many different ways.

TL;DR I'd rather have an ambitious failure than a safe success. Respect > Enjoy
 
But, the public rejected them. So that says they don't won't a director to take risks or make the characters they love edgy. Sometimes safe is the best way to go.
 
Also, the DCU and Gunn currently can't afford to take risks with superman or make him edgy.
This is film #1 of it all. Get it wrong and it's LIKELY to all come crashing down before it even really starts.

It already has a tall hill to climb because of the DCEU, it certainly doesn't need a mountain to climb also..
 
My fear is that Gunn will try to emulate the Reeve Superman and not try to do something risky like Snyder did for Cavill's Superman.

Actually Donner's Superman made wholesale changes to the mythos (no more 'Buck Roger-esque' Krypton, no superboy or Krypto, Ma kent remained alive, Lex Luthor more Golden age than Silver age etc......) but the movie stuck to the essence of what made CK/Kal Superman.
The problem with Snyder wasn't that he took risk but rather he took risk WHILE trying to erase what made Superman who he is inorder to 'edge him up' to make him appeal to people like Snyder himself.
Some of the best Superman stories of all time where edgy and sometimes risky (All star, What ever happened......, For the man who...., Death of Superman, Red son, My secret Identity, Action 775 etc..) but they all stuck to the essence of the character.
In the end I have no issues with Gunn changing things or making the movie 'dark' as long as his Superman is the hopeful, Charismatic, optimistic character the cuts though that darkness.
 
Exactly, the only reason why Donner seems "safe" today is because a lot of what he did was retroactively incorporated to the comics and further adaptations.
 
Snyder's brand of risky feels kind of meaningless to me, because he never took it anywhere worthwhile. Will Superman become staunchly anti-killing in BVS after snapping Zod's neck? He's semi-shown killing the African warlord and working alongside a murdery Batman in the end, so no. Batman lightswitches back to goody-goody mode without holding himself accountable for his own crimes. Etc. I think the effect ultimately was making folks ponder about how much better the films could've been if the stories had more thought to them.

People back in 78 probably didn't wonder whether Superman The Movie was safe or risky, just that it was charming and smart. This movie shouldn't focus on edgy as much as it should on having good characters and non-clunky storytelling. Creating a world that people actually want to spend time in and revisit.
 
People rejected the Dr Seuss "Updates" not because they were edgy, but because they were bad, horrible, dull, idiotic, and awful. Enough said
 
It's not a matter of quality.
It’s absolutely a matter of quality. Snyder’s films failed because they were bad. Poorly-conceived and even more poorly-executed. Gunn is a far better storyteller, so, despite his sensibilities not exactly lining up with mine, I feel quite confident he is capable of telling a story where characters’ actions make sense and are believable, where characters behave like human beings, as well as having a satisfying arc and emotional payoff. Ergo, a better film. “Risks” have nothing to do with it. It’s about knowing the basics of telling a story, the tenets of which Snyder has never grasped in his entire career.
 
The bigger issue is if James Gunn will present a toothless version of Superman to appease the general public.

We've seen that happen again and again. People hated the Jim Carrey Grinch movie, the Johnny Depp Wonka movie, the Bill Murray Garfield movies. They loved the Boris Karloff Grinch, the Gene Wilder Wonka, and the Lorenzo Music, they got offended that the creators would try to do something risky and different them. Then what happened? The studios gave in and delivered toothless, edgeless features like the Benedict Cumberbatch Grinch, the Timothee Chalamet Wonka, and the Chris Pratt Garfield. Inoffensive, without style or creativity or risks, and people accepted them because they don't like anything new. They were very similar to the versions they grew up with.

My fear is that Gunn will try to emulate the Reeve Superman and not try to do something risky like Snyder did for Cavill's Superman.
That film has more creativity then Snyder's whole career.

Something being different does not make it good. Storytelling lives on ability and elegance. You can do something simple and safe, that is also beautiful. You can take risk and do the same.

With Snyder, we watch a man who clearly had no understanding of the material defaulting to his own version of safe. He just Snyder'ed it. Where is the creativity in that? Where is the growth or risk of the artist?
 
Also yeah, Wonka is a wonderful film - more ambitious and artful than anything Snyder has ever touched. It blows the Burton flick outta the water. WTF at that example.
Well you see they decided to have vibrant colors and songs and capture the tone of author, so it was safe. If only they had From Hell'ed it. :weeping:
 
The studios gave in and delivered toothless, edgeless features like the Timothee Chalamet Wonka
602744c9da950d81f78b5b2746a12f9167998035.gif


Paul King can do no wrong.
 
Snyder as a comparsion point here is really interesting. Because he's not someone who pushes himself at all. He's not trying to be different creative. He's spent the last decade since Watchmen doubling down on just himself. Which default to the same too boring to be offensive style of "edge".

This isn't George Miller going from Mad Max to Witches of Eastwick to Babe to Happy Feet to Fury Road. That's an artist taking risk. Changing themselves.

I don't want Gunn to make a Donner flick. But if he did, that would be more creativity risky for him, then anything Snyder has ever done.
 
Also, in terms of artistic growth, I’d argue this film is a risk by default because Gunn has never handled a character like Superman before. “Earnest and wholesome” is not “safe” territory for James Gunn. Unless he makes this “edgelord Superman” like Snyder did, which is extremely doubtful just based on what he’s said thus far, he is already stepping outside of his comfort zone just in making this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,763
Messages
21,804,031
Members
45,624
Latest member
WarMachine95
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"