The Story.

[Wheels]

AntMan, the old TV series of Superman for an example, with George Reeves, character didn't out like the bumbling boyscout. It's time for Kent/Supes to graduate from that persona, and revert back to having a commanding persona.

I understand that, but Sabaoth acts like you have to disregard the comics to get away from that persona, and you don't. Golden Age Superman was a hardass who didn't answer to anyone, and last time I checked Golden Age Superman was in the comics. Awhile back in one of the All Things Superman threads, Sabaoth said somthing about getting rid of the boy scout image, and disregarding the comics. Then, he comes in here and says something about changing the origin: Why disregard the comics if you have so much material to draw from?

 

[Moj1986]

- Both Spiderman and Batman have good movies in part because of it, it develops a character. It someone just gets up and decides to be a hero and be 100% good the character becomes incredibly one dimensional and the audience won't appreciate them (look at Superman Returns).

Batman and Spiderman being good movies has nothing to do with their motivations... they are just good movies, period. - Yes, good films..but in part to the character development offered in the form an origin, reasons for making the decisions they do.

As for the one dimensional thing... all I can say is that it's an incredibly boring way of looking at storytelling. To me, a characters depth isn't achieved by repeating a tired formula that audiences have enjoyed before... it's achieved by showing someone new. - There is nothing new in movies just slight alterations to 'tired formula' that if done well will be well received by its audience.

Superman has an unusual strength of character, level of empathy and self confidence. Those are his 'human' gifts. And telling the story of how he got those gifts and how that empathy, strength and confidence lead to him becoming the world's greatest hero, is so far from one dimensional.
- I don't see an interesting way of him having these 'human gifts' without rolling out the same old story of the Kents showing him right from wrong despite having no realistic idea of how he'd feel. Or through teachings from his alien parents that has been done to death in Superman fims.

If you really can't see that, then I just don't think we are interested in the same type of characters or movies. I'd suggest you watch Transformers. It'd be more your cup of tea. - I'm all for deep characters and if it were possible I'd enjoy the character you mentioned but I think that you perhaps only like one sort of Superman and won't accept any changes..

- He doesn't have to but if he did (and remember it wouldn't be because he wanted to, rather it be more an accidental consequence of the heroism he shows at the time) it would provide the character with a deeper understanding of why life is so important.

No it wouldn't IMO. If he accidentally killed someone while trying to be a hero, it'd make him want to stay away from people all together. Go somewhere he can be sure it'll never happen again. Protect people by staying away. - You've misunderstood my idea..or I've not described it well (it was very general). Killing someone isn't what causes him to become Superman but it would act as one of many events that would shape his attitude when he made the decision to do what he does. The strength is moving forward from that and learning control.

- It isn't guilt and grief that motivates him but it's a tent pole for why he'd never intentionally inflict pain and would find alternatives where possible.

You need a why? Superman needs a reason not to intentionally inflict pain? He can just be... you know... not a psycho?
- No not a reason to not intentionally inflict pain but a reason to want to control the power he has..as he has witnessed the consequences

- As i mentioned before the symbols he would associate himself with would be hope, i.e. he would be born of hope and he would intend his actions to inspire good.

I don't see how you can think an accidental death spurring him on would be him being born of hope - The death is not the catalyst for his decision to become Superman. Him realising that his powers aren't the social curse he's grown with but offer him a chance to make a difference, save people and change a self-destructive world.




Your quite right in one thing. It is 'dated' in a sense. Since it's been so long since a film had the imagination to do it. - Because it wouldn't work in a modern day film, the charachter wouldn't act like that in a modern day society for no reason. People don't believe in anyone being 100% good and making the good and right decisions from the start..it would detach an audience

No one is saying that he shouldn't have emotions, even negative onces. He's grown up human after all. You just don't need to make his 'story' a depressing angsty one. - It wouldn't be completely angst ridden but would have episodes of pain and sadness..providing more insight into the character


QUOTE]

.......Anyway I'm off to watch Transformers

 

[hopefuldreamer]

- Yes, good films..but in part to the character development offered in the form an origin, reasons for making the decisions they do.

Hey, no one is against reasons for becoming Superman in this origin film. I'm just against the reasons you are suggesting, which I feel stray too far from the core of both the character and the overall tone of the story/mythos.

- There is nothing new in movies just slight alterations to 'tired formula' that if done well will be well received by its audience.

:whatever

- I don't see an interesting way of him having these 'human gifts' without rolling out the same old story of the Kents showing him right from wrong despite having no realistic idea of how he'd feel. Or through teachings from his alien parents that has been done to death in Superman fims.

Then I'd say you have a spectacular lack of faith in vision and storytelling and not much of a grasp of the Superman character in it's entirety.

There is so much material there to work with. Numerous origin stories, all with different approaches. None of which require blood on Superman's hands as a part of his history.

- I'm all for deep characters and if it were possible I'd enjoy the character you mentioned but I think that you perhaps only like one sort of Superman and won't accept any changes..

It is possible, and fingers crossed, it's happening.

I can readily accept new interpretations of the story. There are so many different versions of the origin and I love them all. I even watched 10 years of Smallville, as promblematic as that show became, because it still had moments I enjoyed.

But what your talking about isn't something I can get on board with for this film. Maybe for an AU short in the comics...

- You've misunderstood my idea..or I've not described it well (it was very general). Killing someone isn't what causes him to become Superman but it would act as one of many events that would shape his attitude when he made the decision to do what he does. The strength is moving forward from that and learning control.

I understand and appreciate the idea of him learning to control his powers (even tho that's pretty much been done in Smallville for 10 years).

But if you think Clark could accidentally kill someone and just get over it and still become the same Superman, then your really not seeing the character at all.

It would drive him mad with grief and guilt. He would NEVER want to risk anything like that happening again. And your suggesting it happen while he's trying to be a hero? Do you not see how in Clark's mind that would equals - try to be a hero, people die.

How is he going to decide to don the cape and do heroics world wide after experiencing that?

- No not a reason to not intentionally inflict pain but a reason to want to control the power he has..as he has witnessed the consequences


Yeah, that's really no better.

Superman needs a reason to want to control his powers? Like he's too dumb to realise what could happen if he didn't until it's too late?

- The death is not the catalyst for his decision to become Superman. Him realising that his powers aren't the social curse he's grown with but offer him a chance to make a difference, save people and change a self-destructive world.

Then what's the point of the death? Or are you saying that the death makes him realise his powers are not a social curse... Because that really makes no sense.

- Because it wouldn't work in a modern day film, the charachter wouldn't act like that in a modern day society for no reason. People don't believe in anyone being 100% good and making the good and right decisions from the start..it would detach an audience

Speak for yourself.

I believe in the good in people. And I believe in my favourite character representing that in every way.

I don't want a Superman whose just like me. That's what Spiderman is to me.

I want a Superman that's everything I want to be, and try to be on a daily basis.

- It wouldn't be completely angst ridden but would have episodes of pain and sadness..providing more insight into the character

And of course you can't provide insight into the negative emotions he has through his life without him killing someone accidentally?

As someone else said, what is already there is enough. Adoption issues. Loneliness from knowing he is the last of his kind (especially in dealing with a story about Zod). His fears of being discovered. Guilt about having to lie to the people he's close too like Lois. Outsider issues. Frustrations at society's obvious corruption and greed and how it makes him angry.

Superman is already a complicated character, with a lot more going on in his head than they've ever delved into in the comics.

But as Superman Returns made the mistake of doing, you shouldn't make those negative emotions the focus of the story. Because Superman is not an angst ridden character. He's not broody all the time, he's not full of pain and anguish. It's there, sure, but he has enough good influences in his life to make him happy, to help him through that stuff instead of just dwelling on it.

 

[Moj1986]

- Yes, good films..but in part to the character development offered in the form an origin, reasons for making the decisions they do.

Hey, no one is against reasons for becoming Superman in this origin film. I'm just against the reasons you are suggesting, which I feel stray too far from the core of both the character and the overall tone of the story/mythos.

- There is nothing new in movies just slight alterations to 'tired formula' that if done well will be well received by its audience.

:whatever

- I don't see an interesting way of him having these 'human gifts' without rolling out the same old story of the Kents showing him right from wrong despite having no realistic idea of how he'd feel. Or through teachings from his alien parents that has been done to death in Superman fims.

Then I'd say you have a spectacular lack of faith in vision and storytelling and not much of a grasp of the Superman character in it's entirety.

There is so much material there to work with. Numerous origin stories, all with different approaches. None of which require blood on Superman's hands as a part of his history.

- I'm all for deep characters and if it were possible I'd enjoy the character you mentioned but I think that you perhaps only like one sort of Superman and won't accept any changes..

It is possible, and fingers crossed, it's happening.

I can readily accept new interpretations of the story. There are so many different versions of the origin and I love them all. I even watched 10 years of Smallville, as promblematic as that show became, because it still had moments I enjoyed.

But what your talking about isn't something I can get on board with for this film. Maybe for an AU short in the comics...

- You've misunderstood my idea..or I've not described it well (it was very general). Killing someone isn't what causes him to become Superman but it would act as one of many events that would shape his attitude when he made the decision to do what he does. The strength is moving forward from that and learning control.

I understand and appreciate the idea of him learning to control his powers (even tho that's pretty much been done in Smallville for 10 years).

But if you think Clark could accidentally kill someone and just get over it and still become the same Superman, then your really not seeing the character at all.

It would drive him mad with grief and guilt. He would NEVER want to risk anything like that happening again. And your suggesting it happen while he's trying to be a hero? Do you not see how in Clark's mind that would equals - try to be a hero, people die.

How is he going to decide to don the cape and do heroics world wide after experiencing that?

- No not a reason to not intentionally inflict pain but a reason to want to control the power he has..as he has witnessed the consequences


Yeah, that's really no better.

Superman needs a reason to want to control his powers? Like he's too dumb to realise what could happen if he didn't until it's too late?

- The death is not the catalyst for his decision to become Superman. Him realising that his powers aren't the social curse he's grown with but offer him a chance to make a difference, save people and change a self-destructive world.

Then what's the point of the death? Or are you saying that the death makes him realise his powers are not a social curse... Because that really makes no sense.

- Because it wouldn't work in a modern day film, the charachter wouldn't act like that in a modern day society for no reason. People don't believe in anyone being 100% good and making the good and right decisions from the start..it would detach an audience

Speak for yourself.

I believe in the good in people. And I believe in my favourite character representing that in every way.

I don't want a Superman whose just like me. That's what Spiderman is to me.

I want a Superman that's everything I want to be, and try to be on a daily basis.

- It wouldn't be completely angst ridden but would have episodes of pain and sadness..providing more insight into the character

And of course you can't provide insight into the negative emotions he has through his life without him killing someone accidentally?

As someone else said, what is already there is enough. Adoption issues. Loneliness from knowing he is the last of his kind (especially in dealing with a story about Zod). His fears of being discovered. Guilt about having to lie to the people he's close too like Lois. Outsider issues. Frustrations at society's obvious corruption and greed and how it makes him angry.

Superman is already a complicated character, with a lot more going on in his head than they've ever delved into in the comics.

But as Superman Returns made the mistake of doing, you shouldn't make those negative emotions the focus of the story. Because Superman is not an angst ridden character. He's not broody all the time, he's not full of pain and anguish. It's there, sure, but he has enough good influences in his life to make him happy, to help him through that stuff instead of just dwelling on it.

I did write a reply to everything you answered me with but have somehow managed to lose the whole thing. In summation, there are some things I'm saying you seem to have confused. There are a lot of things I'm saying that we are just never going to agree on and that's because at heart you're a purest and I'm not..i'm happy to see change if it can work with the character/the evolution of the character.

"I want a Superman that's everything I want to be, and try to be on a daily basis." - enjoy wearing your tights

 

[Dark Knight]

I have a feeling we will see a non linear MOS story/script/screenplay much in the same vein as Nolan and Goyers Batman Begins and how The Godfather 2 was executed. Clark/Superman origins will be shown and some non linear scenes showing Crowes Jor El dealing with the events leading up to Kryptons destruction along with Zod.

If this happens, we will be in for treat IMO. Potentially this type of script and screenplay format would be great to see onscreen for a Superman film.

 

[The Batman]

I hope Cavill's Reporter Clark persona stands out like Bale's Playboy Bruce persona.

Cause if he's just gonna do a dean cain thing, that'll be dull. Say what you will about Reeve, but both his Superman and Clark were memorable.

 

[Lead Cenobite]

Fortunately, there has not been a single shred of information to suggest anything from Birthright is being "adapted" in MOS. Some rumors die hard.



If it were a direct to video anime, I would agree with you. A big screen adaptation of Birthright would be a real stinker and complete box office disaster. Birthright is best remembered as a failed attempt at Superman's origin, forgotten and discarded in the quarter bin, at your local comics shop.

I think MOS will go with a new origin story, completely unrelated to anything we have seen before in comics.
I'm sure we will all be pleasantly surprised with what they have in store for us!

A new origin that's completely unrelated to anything in the comics? No thank you. I still want to see a character that resembles Superman in the new movie.

 

[Puckenstein]

A new origin that's completely unrelated to anything in the comics? No thank you. I still want to see a character that resembles Superman in the new movie.

I know, right?

Lose the trunks, remove the worthless belt, hang up his cape, give him armor, dress him in black, and give him a new origin.

This IS a Superman movie, right?

 

[Wheels]

I know, right?

Lose the trunks, remove the worthless belt, hang up his cape, give him armor, dress him in black, and give him a new origin.

This IS a Superman movie, right?

That what I don't understand: Why would someone want a completely new Superman, who is unrelated to any version in the comics? You don't want the boyscout? Then draw inspiration from the golden age. Don't like one element of an origin story? Then use an element from another story. Don't completely disregard the comics, and then slap Superman's name on it.

 

[IamtheBatman]

They should make the story after Superman: Secret Origin

 

[Rodrigo90]

I hope Cavill's Reporter Clark persona stands out like Bale's Playboy Bruce persona.

Cause if he's just gonna do a dean cain thing, that'll be dull. Say what you will about Reeve, but both his Superman and Clark were memorable.

Well what is the "Clark Kent persona"?

It's a a symbolic image of the ordinary, everyday, innocent and clumsy person. A total image of innocence and well-meaning.

Clark Kent in public, is the guy who will say something innocent, hold the door for people, compliment Jimmy Olsen on another crappy photo, just make him feel good.

Clark is Superman's connection to human's on a close and personal level, IMO. Clark is Superman's image of the people he saves, good and wholesome.

 

[Kurosawa]

Well what is the "Clark Kent persona"?

It's a a symbolic image of the ordinary, everyday, innocent and clumsy person. A total image of innocence and well-meaning.

Clark Kent in public, is the guy who will say something innocent, hold the door for people, compliment Jimmy Olsen on another crappy photo, just make him feel good.

Clark is Superman's connection to human's on a close and personal level, IMO. Clark is Superman's image of the people he saves, good and wholesome.

Clark is everything Bill says he is in Kill Bill II...except that Bill reads Clark wrong because he is evil. Clark Kent is Superman's love letter to the human race. Superman needs Clark like most people need dreams. Most superheroes are the exact same person in and out of costume. Superman is different in that he has a real alter ego. That's also why Dean Cain's Clark and other versions that have Clark as the real person and Superman the disguise fail. Superman was never intended to be that way and has never succeeded when written in such a manner.

When Superman puts on the glasses and the blue suit and back in the day, the fedora, he gets an escape from being Superman and all that is expected from him.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Why would Superman need a break from being who he is(Superman). If anything I would think he need a break from being Clark Kent... Kent is the sham. Having constantly pretend something he's not all day, everyday. Being Superman is a release.

 

[Sabaoth]

You do understand that they could give us something we've never seen on film and still stay true to the source, right? I've seen your posts about getting rid of the boyscout image, and acting like you have to disregard the comics to do that, which you don't.

Why would you advocate abandoning the comics altogether?

While I don't advocate an abandoning of the comics, I'm not interested in a completely faithful adaptation either.
I want to see something new, that we haven't seen before.
I want Snyder to wow me with an original take on the legend.
My tastes have evolved beyond the "Gee whiz, bubba, dat looks just like it does in the comics" stage!

 

[Sabaoth]

Wasn't there rumor or story details of young Clark Kent in Africa doing a reporting story before deciding to become Superman? That's taken from Birthright, and it's a good idea to use. Birthright's a good source to pull from, and the first five chapters are excellent.

While I have a very strong dislike for the most of Birthright (particularly everything that happens after he starts wearing the suit), I agree the Africa reporting story would be great in MOS.
That said, it is only a rumor at this point.
We really don't know.

 

[Sabaoth]

I understand that, but Sabaoth acts like you have to disregard the comics to get away from that persona, and you don't. Golden Age Superman was a hardass who didn't answer to anyone, and last time I checked Golden Age Superman was in the comics. Awhile back in one of the All Things Superman threads, Sabaoth said somthing about getting rid of the boy scout image, and disregarding the comics. Then, he comes in here and says something about changing the origin: Why disregard the comics if you have so much material to draw from?

The "boy scout image" is an albatross hanging from Superman's neck, courtesy of Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns,' where the Man of Steel was characterized as the loyal lapdog of a U.S. government gone wrong, acting faithfully without questioning the motives of his superiors, apparently possessing no individual will of his own.

 

[Wheels]

While I don't advocate an abandoning of the comics, I'm not interested in a completely faithful adaptation either.
I want to see something new, that we haven't seen before.
I want Snyder to wow me with an original take on the legend.
My tastes have evolved beyond the "Gee whiz, bubba, dat looks just like it does in the comics" stage!

Please.

You've talked about giving Superman an all black costume, changing his origins, and changing his personality into something it has never been. You want to see a completely different character, who has Superman's powers and name, but that's about it.

I'm not interested in a Superman Lives type film.

 

[Sabaoth]

What I'm really hoping to see is that for the first time, we get to see a live action arc done properly where we see Superman having to earn the trust and love that he eventually gains from the public in this film.

Perhaps by the end of the film, he gains trust and love from a portion of the public. I can't imagine a realistic scenario (since they're not aiming for camp) where the entire world trusts and loves Superman. (I cringed when I saw the "everyone loves Superman" scene in SR. It just seemed so campy!)

 

[The Sage]

The "boy scout image" is an albatross hanging from Superman's neck, courtesy of Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns,' where the Man of Steel was characterized as the loyal lapdog of a U.S. government gone wrong, acting faithfully without questioning the motives of his superiors, apparently possessing no individual will of his own.

That's how Frank Miller interpreted it, not the way it is. The Boy Scout nickname originated because Superman is someone who does what's right because it's right. That's not something you want to get away from.

 

[ElDuderino]

No, you don't want to get away from that too much, but that doesn't mean Superman can't be cool, angry, gritty, or even have sex appeal at times.

 

[Sabaoth]

Please.

You've talked about giving Superman an all black costume, changing his origins, and changing his personality into something it has never been. You want to see a completely different character, who has Superman's powers and name, but that's about it.

I'm not interested in a Superman Lives type film.

That's not true. I just want to see a new take on the MOS, that's all.
Between black and white are many shades of gray.

 

[The Sage]

No, you don't want to get away from that too much, but that doesn't mean Superman can't be cool, angry, gritty, or even have sex appeal at times.

Gritty is already a trait of Superman, if you're referring to being courageous.

No one's saying he shoudn't get angry. Some of his best moments are when he's pushed to that point, like For the Man Who Has Everything.

But the Boy Scout must remain.

 

[KRIM]

The term carries negative connotations in relation to the character, so I don't know if that's exactly what people would event want. I've no issue with him upholding a very specific and idealized code of honor, but there are many ways to portray that.

I would say to get rid of the cornball cheesiness that has permeated many of the performances thus far.

 

[The Sage]

The term carries negative connotations in relation to the character, so I don't know if that's exactly what people would event want. I've no issue with him upholding a very specific and idealized code of honor, but there are many ways to portray that.

I would say to get rid of the cornball cheesiness that has permeated many of the performances thus far.

Such as?

 

[KRIM]

I don't know what you're asking.