The Official Writer & Storyline Thread

[El Payaso]

I find that poll VERY VERY interesting!

It's funny to see that some of the posters who always claim they "hated" SR gave it a favorable rating. Hmmm I find that very curious...

Bandwagon. I find it very natural.

I'm glad to see I gave it a 9/10

9.5 here.

 

[Anita18]

That scene WAS the winning the public back.

When you save people from a horrible death you don't know how much of a quick forgivers they could be.

I guess so, but it should have taken longer and been more of a struggle. I mean, the guy had been gone for 5 years with no explanation or phone call going, "Hey citizens of Earth, sorry I left, just wanted to let you know that I'll be gone for a while, but I'll be back!"

But precisely the fact that is personal is what makes it more substantial. That can't be a meh, that's what every superhero movie is about; the girl and the villain.

Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't have done a scene with people of Metropolis giving opinions on what Superman did, but this was clearly an intimate movie about Superman and what he feels.

The trailers were a little misguiding. But the blogs specially were an awful idea.

The blogs were neat seeing all the work they put into production and how they did it, but after hearing about how expensive the movie was, I can only wonder how the budget people signed off on it.

And yeah, making it a personal struggle is always the cornerstone of every movie's conflict, but Supes is such a larger-than-life figure, that there should be another layer to it. TDK showed us what was possible when you added a "regular folk" component to the story, and the scope of the conflict was just one city. (Didn't help that Lex's evil scheme made me go, "WTF? Seriously?") All we saw of the regular citizens of Metropolis was them having to be rescued and/or gaping at Superman afterwards.

The Schindler's List's scene you mention is about what Schindler feels, not about people reproaching him not being able to do more.

...

Then again I - finally - saw a scene where Superman expresses how is it like to be able to listen everybody asking for a saviour. That scene clearly expresses how Superman can't help everybody and can't have one moment of rest. And that affects him.

True, but Supes only talks about it fleetingly, and most of the scenes that involved him showing his guilt were cut. When he goes around rescuing people, he acts like he never left at all. Some changes in the way they shot it could have drastically altered that.

 

[dark_b]

it depends how you writte the movie. you can ahve a superman movie where thepublic forgives him and loves him in a second. or you can make it mroe interesting ( IMO) and writte a movie where the public is shocked confused and a little angry.

 

[El Payaso]

I guess so, but it should have taken longer and been more of a struggle. I mean, the guy had been gone for 5 years with no explanation or phone call going, "Hey citizens of Earth, sorry I left, just wanted to let you know that I'll be gone for a while, but I'll be back!"

Ah yes. Superman talking to the press or something. I agree

The blogs were neat seeing all the work they put into production and how they did it, but after hearing about how expensive the movie was, I can only wonder how the budget people signed off on it.

See how it was a bad idea?

The less you know about a movie the more you can enjoy it for what it is, not what you thought it was going to be or what they made you think it was going to be.

And yeah, making it a personal struggle is always the cornerstone of every movie's conflict, but Supes is such a larger-than-life figure, that there should be another layer to it. TDK showed us what was possible when you added a "regular folk" component to the story, and the scope of the conflict was just one city. (Didn't help that Lex's evil scheme made me go, "WTF? Seriously?") All we saw of the regular citizens of Metropolis was them having to be rescued and/or gaping at Superman afterwards.

I don't think TDK should become the only possible forced formula for every superhero movie.

That said, what else do we need to know about a bunch of Metropolites? What other superhero movie has spent screentime in regular city people?

And hasn't Luthor's goal always been to take over the world? We klnew from the growing crystals from STM (FOS creation) and here Luthor is merely using that to his own benefit. I mean, to create an entire continent just for yourself is totally in character for him. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic or believable. Joker being a realistic face-painter terrorist might work for Nolan's vision but it can't impose that perspective to everything else.

True, but Supes only talks about it fleetingly, and most of the scenes that involved him showing his guilt were cut. When he goes around rescuing people, he acts like he never left at all. Some changes in the way they shot it could have drastically altered that.

But why should he be acting any differently? I mean, how? To rescue people and saying "Sorry for leaving!" instead of "Up up and away"? He is the same Superman as always respect of saving people.

He was felt guilty when watching the TV and in every scene involving Lois.

My point is that, even when good ideas, what you say that could have been there doesn't make this a bad movie.

 

[stargazer]

Because you were agreeing with the The Kid's outlook on SR, which was a positive take on the film. The thing is, The Kid hates SR. But I don't think you knew that. He posted as Wesyeed for a long time and made his dislike for the film and Superman's son very clear. He's just trying to be cute now.



.

ah, I see...

I always liked it, and I gave hints that I did from time to time. Son of ***** movie took me right back to being that 12 year old kid reading superman at the comic shop. I just decided to lie for revenge purposes, something I normally wouldn't do, but felt it needed to be done (childish, I know... ).

You don't have to believe me, but I'm being all sincere. I know I shouldn't beat myself up since it's just a forum, but I try to hold myself to a higher standard than that trollish nonsense. I was just so mad, then I let the beast out and things got nasty. And you know how it's said that crazy people don't know they're crazy? It's true.

This is going on too long but please but bear with me here. It was around the time regwec made a thread calling for peace amongst batfans that I realized my trolling was out of control. Here was someone trying to achieve what I wanted too and I blindly ruined it. I knew that my desire for revenge was a problem then and decided to just quit posting, maybe forever. I needed to clear my head and so I've done that... There's no way I can erase the mistakes of the past, but like a prisoner released from jail, maybe I can just try to rebuild a better life, posting life, than the one before as pathetic as that sounds.

I'm really not this complete loonatic offline. But these internets they maka me carazay, show!

No, I'm not. *shrugs* It's my fault for being so stupid and giving people reason to distrust me, and I can't take it back, but I really wish I could.

Soon after the war was over, I compared it to Ang Lee's Hulk, another widely misunderstood movie I also liked very much. And really that's the reason I was the way I was... I wanted revenge for how Lee's hulk was treated and now I realize how foolish it was to let myself become this little monster. I want redemption so bad, you don't know... but I'll never get it. I have to live with all those old posts haunting me now.

I soo hope you are telling the truth now. If you're not.. well, that's be REALLY sad and pathetic. But I do believe people are capable of radical changes in their lives; life makes you to.

Ah yes. Superman talking to the press or something. I agree



See how it was a bad idea?

The less you know about a movie the more you can enjoy it for what it is, not what you thought it was going to be or what they made you think it was going to be.



I don't think TDK should become the only possible forced formula for every superhero movie.

That said, what else do we need to know about a bunch of Metropolites? What other superhero movie has spent screentime in regular city people?

And hasn't Luthor's goal always been to take over the world? We klnew from the growing crystals from STM (FOS creation) and here Luthor is merely using that to his own benefit. I mean, to create an entire continent just for yourself is totally in character for him. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic or believable. Joker being a realistic face-painter terrorist might work for Nolan's vision but it can't impose that perspective to everything else.



But why should he be acting any differently? I mean, how? To rescue people and saying "Sorry for leaving!" instead of "Up up and away"? He is the same Superman as always respect of saving people.

He was felt guilty when watching the TV and in every scene involving Lois.

My point is that, even when good ideas, what you say that could have been there doesn't make this a bad movie.

Excellent post.

I didn't know nothing about SR prior watching it, hell, I didn't even know that sites like this existed! (yes, it's the truth) And I enjoyed the film so much and that's why I'm here after 2 freaking years.

 

[Anita18]

See how it was a bad idea?

The less you know about a movie the more you can enjoy it for what it is, not what you thought it was going to be or what they made you think it was going to be.

Oh, I know, but I can't help it. The same thing even happened with TDK, but I wasn't let down by it even though I needed a second viewing to appreciate it fully.

I don't think TDK should become the only possible forced formula for every superhero movie.

That said, what else do we need to know about a bunch of Metropolites? What other superhero movie has spent screentime in regular city people?

And hasn't Luthor's goal always been to take over the world? We klnew from the growing crystals from STM (FOS creation) and here Luthor is merely using that to his own benefit. I mean, to create an entire continent just for yourself is totally in character for him. It doesn't have to be 100% realistic or believable. Joker being a realistic face-painter terrorist might work for Nolan's vision but it can't impose that perspective to everything else.

See, that's why superhero movies have always been kinda mleh for me. The regular people are there as manikins for the hero to rescue. Now that TDK has done more, the ground has been broken for other writers to hopefully add that component to their superhero films as well. At least, in my perfect world.

I think I felt let down by what SR proposed and didn't deliver. Lex mentions that he'd have technology beyond anyone could have imagined. And the movie didn't deliver on that, because he uses the crystals to grow bigger crystals.

But why should he be acting any differently? I mean, how? To rescue people and saying "Sorry for leaving!" instead of "Up up and away"? He is the same Superman as always respect of saving people.

He wouldn't necessarily have to say anything. He could rescue people as usual, but the camera could focus on his face as he does it, so we get an idea that even though he's back and he's doing the same good deeds as before, things are not the same. We could get the sense that he's trying to make up for that lost time.

My point is that, even when good ideas, what you say that could have been there doesn't make this a bad movie.

SR wasn't a bad movie. I laugh at bad movies and don't bother with them. It just could have been better, and that's the frustrating part with me because it's so easy to see where it could have been improved.

 

[Doc Samson]

I just think Superman suffers from the day and age we live in. I think Captain America will have the same issues, potentially. The kids love these "dark" emotionally battered Superhero stories right now. Superman isn't about that, nor should he ever be. The same things that made TDK & IM successful won't work with a character like this. What will work is taking Superman out of the same usual routine we've gotten in every movie so far, and introducing villains that can pose a viable threat to him both mentally and physically. And for pete's sake, let's have him travel through the galaxy a bit here, this is Superman we're talking about, let's show him fighting bigger threats, we're no longer restricted by technological shortcomings

 

[myway]

So does this new Routh interview where he talks about "the sequel" incline us further to believe that they're not scrapping SR?

 

[Spirited Away]

Where Clark's first superhero "identity" is The Samaritan, not Superman.

Should Warner Bros. consider using this approach for the new movie (granted it's another origin story)?

I definitely think they should consider it. It would make for an interesting middle act in the movie, when Clark's first testing out the idea of being a superhero. Then the new name "Superman" can formally come at the end, say, when Lois writes a big article about her big adventure and calls it "Superman".

Or would people still prefer the age-old, overnight-ness of the original movie?

 

[El Payaso]

Oh, I know, but I can't help it. The same thing even happened with TDK, but I wasn't let down by it even though I needed a second viewing to appreciate it fully.

That's the thing: with clips and blogs you never know how it will affect your first perception. You just know it WILL be affected.

See, that's why superhero movies have always been kinda mleh for me. The regular people are there as manikins for the hero to rescue. Now that TDK has done more, the ground has been broken for other writers to hopefully add that component to their superhero films as well. At least, in my perfect world.

Well, I've been always against formulising movies. TDK was a success, so the Hollywood mentality will be making TDK the new superhero movies cookie-cutter.

That said, TDK came 2 years after SR.

That said, Superman's super-powers work the best when people are defenseless and Superman rescues them after they thought every hope is lost.

I think I felt let down by what SR proposed and didn't deliver. Lex mentions that he'd have technology beyond anyone could have imagined. And the movie didn't deliver on that, because he uses the crystals to grow bigger crystals.

And Luthor has technology beyond anyone could have imagined.

The movie did deliver on that.

He wouldn't necessarily have to say anything. He could rescue people as usual, but the camera could focus on his face as he does it, so we get an idea that even though he's back and he's doing the same good deeds as before, things are not the same. We could get the sense that he's trying to make up for that lost time.

That's EXACTLY what happened between Superman and Lois.

 

[Anita18]

That's the thing: with clips and blogs you never know how it will affect your first perception. You just know it WILL be affected.

I actually don't think I saw any clips of SR before it came out aside from the trailers, and I only saw the video blogs recently because I've been getting more interested in how films are made.

But even just the trailers were enough to color my perception of what the film was going in. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially if the film was bigger than what the trailers offered. But it was the opposite with SR, where I felt the trailer was offering a bigger story than what the film actually had.

That said, Superman's super-powers work the best when people are defenseless and Superman rescues them after they thought every hope is lost.

But the filmmakers have to take the time to show that all hope is lost. I loved the part in SR where Richard comes to rescue Lois and Jason, and finds them all in danger despite all of his best efforts, THEN Superman comes to the rescue. That part I found powerful, because there was no possible way for a normal human being to do what Superman did to save them. The situation with Kitty's failing brakes, cops handle all the time. You didn't NEED Superman there to fix the situation.

And Luthor has technology beyond anyone could have imagined.

The movie did deliver on that.

Not in my opinion. He grew really big crystals. If he did more with them, I don't recall it being an important plot point.

That's EXACTLY what happened between Superman and Lois.

I didn't read guilt or regret all that much on Superman. He comes in to rescue that plane, and it's Lois in shock seeing him again, but afterwards he just gives her a slight smile and that's it. It's only afterwards, when he realizes that Lois has really moved on, that I think he shows regret.

But again, I'm only going on what we were given with the plot. If I'm mistaken, please, edumacate me.

 

[Billy Batson]

(Yes) with Welling as SUPERMAN.
(No) with any other actor.

 

[Billy Batson]

Any new movie without Welling should be allowed it's own approach to the story of C.K independent of SV's silliness.

 

[Spirited Away]

I doubt Warner would want Tom Welling playing two different versions of Superman.

 

[SatEL]

Smallville is ruining everything, they are exposing a lot of stuff thand some of that stuff should be reserved for film only. Oh and when are they going to kill that ***** Chloe.

 

[X-Maniac]

Smallville is ruining everything, they are exposing a lot of stuff thand some of that stuff should be reserved for film only. Oh and when are they going to kill that ***** Chloe.

I do watch Smallville but there is a lot of bad stuff in there as well as the good.

I'd much prefer if these teen shows were made from available canon (Teen Titans or Marvel's New Mutants, X-Men First Class, etc,) than by a reimagining that ends up going beyond reasonable bounds. I think the same will be said of The Graysons.

An X-Men related show using the young students at Xavier's school has much more possibility without straying into bizarre elseworld realms. (I know that's outside Warner's remit)

Half of the problem with Smallville is we know how the story ends (he becomes Supes and becomes involved with Lois) and it's now so stretched out it is just frustrating.

 

[Showtime]

I couldn't even begin to understand this thread.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^agreed.

 

[storyteller]

You mean should they adapt the post crisis superman concept of clark kent being the real guy and superman being what he can do? Lois and Clark did it. STAS series did it. And now smallville is doing it. I think the movies need to do it as well. Superman seems less real when he's just acting human. He's a god walking among the people. When Clark is the real identity, He's a Man with the powers of a god walking among people. He's not an act and everything he does is the real deal.

 

[AgentPat]

I couldn't even begin to understand this thread.

Why not ask Spirited Away for clarification? The question isn't that complicated folks. That said, I think Spirited Away might have gotten more on-topic replies if he/she had suggested an extended origin and referenced Byrne instead of SV, but que será.

Spirited Away, all I want is a fun Superman movie. I don't care how long they take to reveal Superman as Superman, but I do hope they leave the gloomy and depressing nonsense on the cutting room floor this time. If the next film is fresh and inspiring with a new, charismatic cast and believable performances, I'll be happy.

 

[Compi716]

Where Clark's first superhero "identity" is The Samaritan, not Superman.

Should Warner Bros. consider using this approach for the new movie (granted it's another origin story)?

I definitely think they should consider it. It would make for an interesting middle act in the movie, when Clark's first testing out the idea of being a superhero. Then the new name "Superman" can formally come at the end, say, when Lois writes a big article about her big adventure and calls it "Superman".

Or would people still prefer the age-old, overnight-ness of the original movie?

What? They did this? Good lord.

I would never, EVER want to see this element in a Superman film. Ever.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Where Clark's first superhero "identity" is The Samaritan, not Superman.

Should Warner Bros. consider using this approach for the new movie (granted it's another origin story)?

I definitely think they should consider it. It would make for an interesting middle act in the movie, when Clark's first testing out the idea of being a superhero. Then the new name "Superman" can formally come at the end, say, when Lois writes a big article about her big adventure and calls it "Superman".

Or would people still prefer the age-old, overnight-ness of the original movie?

The important thing to emphasis here is that "The Samaritan" storyline is a product of the Smallville series.
And in no way is actually a part of the original Superman mythos.

I said this in another thread, but i'll say it again:
The "S" costume, and Clark's Glasses come into play after Clark, in a total heat of the moment, saves a plane from crashing, and his picture is taken by Jimmy Olsen.. (this event was rehashed, somewhat, in SR)...

It is that article, written by Lois Lane that gives him his name "Superman". Until then Clark had been trying to fit in as a normal person. After the release of this front page picture and article, Martha Kent stitches together the Superman costume from the blankets they found Clark in.

Smallville is a lot like the original "Superboy" comics... wherein it's told at the end that these were stories that Martha Kent had made up.
Smallville is a supposition of the Pre-Superman days, and if it is at all to relate to the original Superman mythos, is quickly running out of time. Clark SHOULD be learning from Jor-El in the Fortress, and going to college for a degree in journalism by now.
He SHOULD NOT be working at the Planet, or having anything to do with Metropolis, or Lois Lane.. yet.

I say: Lose this "The Samaritan" aspect in the new movie. Lose it, and make sure it stays lost on network TV.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I doubt Warner would want Tom Welling playing two different versions of Superman.

Considering that they're considering having Routh play two different versions of Superman, I wouldn't put them past hiring Welling to play two different versions of Superman.

That said as DRT says: "The less Smallville the world is exposed to, the better off we will all be."

 

[AgentPat]

Holy crap! Am I the only person that understood the question?

Pssst.... folks? Not sure what you all are going on about, but there is no "The Samaritan" character in SV. Never has been, and to my knowledge, never will be. Spirited Away is talking about an extended origin idea for the next film, where Clark Kent experiments with his public identity before he's given the name, "Superman." How should he appear to the world? Would he have a public identity beyond being a red/blue blur or some nameless good samaritan? This is approximately where we are in SV right now; Clark wants to continue to use his abilities to help people but he doesn't want to be recognized in the process. He's also seen the good that comes from being a symbol of hope versus just an urban legend. This is a conundrum for him because he needs to be SEEN in order to be a symbol. So therein lies the identity dilemma. SA wanted to know if folks would rather see something like that in the next film or stick with the smash-cut approach of intro'ing Supes ala STM, hence the "age-old, overnight-ness of the original movie" comment.

On a side note, I'm not sure who "DRT" is, but SV is entertainment, not a freakin' disease. Being "exposed" to it is a choice made by the individual, not some painful right of passage required of all Superman fans. In other words, you don't have to watch it if you think it's a pox on the mythos. Of course, the same applies for the next Superman film. We have a choice to subject ourselves to exposure.

 

[Showtime]

Why not ask Spirited Away for clarification? The question isn't that complicated folks. That said, I think Spirited Away might have gotten more on-topic replies if he/she had suggested an extended origin and referenced Byrne instead of SV, but que será.

Hence why I said I can't begin to understand the thread, it was an open question to anybody.