The Talon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Once again it looks like the Idiots at WB (h/t Trip) have completely missed the boat. On the one hand I'm glad to hear they're finally taking their stable of DC properties seriously. On the other, they still don't get it. The reason Dark Knight worked is not because it was "dark." It worked precisely because Nolan and co. remained true to the character's essence. The reason Dark Knight was dark was because Batman is dark.

It's like they've learned the completely wrong lesson from the Batman success. They think "let's just make everything dark and gritty" and all will be hunky dory. Meanwhile, some of their properties don't have to be "dark and gritty." A Flash movie should be fun. A Superman movie should be fun. A Shazam movie should be fun. But they want to "explore the evil side of their characters"? Are you serious?! Gah! So frustrating.

Just look at Iron Man (the other hugely popular superhero flick of the year). That also worked because Favs and company got the character. There wasn't anything dark about it and it still grossed eleventy billion dollars!

No, the lesson they should've learned is to get a director and writer who have a real reverence for the character (not just a fetish for one particular 30 year old cinematic interpretation of that character, ahem) and let them go to town. But this mandate to make every comic movie dark and gritty sounds a little too much like the time they wanted to turn Superman into a violent, capeless, black leather clad Burton Batman clone because that's what they thought attributed to the success of B89.
 
Once again it looks like the Idiots at WB (h/t Trip) have completely missed the boat. On the one hand I'm glad to hear they're finally taking their stable of DC properties seriously. On the other, they still don't get it. The reason Dark Knight worked is not because it was "dark." It worked precisely because Nolan and co. remained true to the character's essence. The reason Dark Knight was dark was because Batman is dark.

It's like they've learned the completely wrong lesson from the Batman success. They think "let's just make everything dark and gritty" and all will be hunky dory. Meanwhile, some of their properties don't have to be "dark and gritty." A Flash movie should be fun. A Superman movie should be fun. A Shazam movie should be fun. But they want to "explore the evil side of their characters"? Are you serious?! Gah! So frustrating.

Just look at Iron Man (the other hugely popular superhero flick of the year). That also worked because Favs and company got the character. There wasn't anything dark about it and it still grossed eleventy billion dollars!

No, the lesson they should've learned is to get a director and writer who have a real reverence for the character (not just a fetish for one particular 30 year old cinematic interpretation of that character, ahem) and let them go to town. But this mandate to make every comic movie dark and gritty sounds a little too much like the time they wanted to turn Superman into a violent, capeless, black leather clad Burton Batman clone because that's what they thought attributed to the success of B89.

And once again you're jumping to conclusions, Iron Man wasn't only "fun", it had its dark moments too, is not black or white, is about having rough, dark moments, not the campy stuff of Donner's Superman or the lame story of SR. The key will be the writers of the script, if they understand the character, they will get it right, a decent director and the right casting should do the rest.
 
And once again you're jumping to conclusions, Iron Man wasn't only "fun", it had its dark moments too, is not black or white, is about having rough, dark moments, not the campy stuff of Donner's Superman or the lame story of SR. The key will be the writers of the script, if they understand the character, they will get it right, a decent director and the right casting should do the rest.

Iron Man had its dark moments because the character is dark. Superman shouldn't be like that, IMO. I wasn't thrilled when Smallville took a darker approach from season 5. I still miss the good ol' days of seasons 1-3 (some 4) when it was more of a family show. I think the new movie should be more like that rather than dark. But maybe we're all looking way into this "dark" comment. Maybe Robinov meant that he wanted it to be set in a more realistic world? I could get on board with that just as long as Superman doesn't change.
 
I don't see a problem having a darker, angrier Superman. He's not going to have demons, not really, but he's had issues in the comics.

He's not completely a nice guy. He acts without thinking and does let his temper get the better of him at times. He can also be arrogant and self-righteous, so there is plenty of room in comic canon to get Superman darker than he'd been before in the films.

The thing is, you wouldn't want him to ever condone evil or crime, much less get directly involved with anything that was illegal or unethical. Now, Bruce doesn't necessarily do that either, but he looks the other way and bends the rules when it suits him too (like using the cell phones to spy on people in TDK).

Bruce can get into a situation where he can see that the ends will justify the means, where Clark would never would.

The recent storyline in the Superman/Batman comics where Clark and Bruce were trying to clean the world of Kryptonite to make Clark be safer made Superman push some boundaries he wouldn't have normally.

He's not always squeaky clean...
 
Many prefer the darker seasons, SV wasn't that much of a "family show" to start with, it always had dark and creepy moments.
Some people are overreacting to the "dark" stuff, of course Superman is not Batman, but he's not a saint either, he can go "dark" against Brainiac or Darkseid if he has no other choice.
 
I'm not opposed to a reboot, as long as it's truthful to and in the best interests of the character. We don't need anything a extreme as a Tim Burton reboot, and we need to steer away from the too-oft sullen, melancholic mood of Superman Returns.
 
I don't see a problem having a darker, angrier Superman. He's not going to have demons, not really, but he's had issues in the comics.

He's not completely a nice guy. He acts without thinking and does let his temper get the better of him at times. He can also be arrogant and self-righteous, so there is plenty of room in comic canon to get Superman darker than he'd been before in the films.

The recent storyline in the Superman/Batman comics where Clark and Bruce were trying to clean the world of Kryptonite to make Clark be safer made Superman push some boundaries he wouldn't have normally.

He's not always squeaky clean...


Charmed...My name is Jack...

(that's my way of saying, I like what you're saying...)

For Supes, you could equate "dark" to "more intense"...which is exactly what I think many have been asking for, is it not?

:word:
 
"Faster, and more intense!" HA!

That'd be sweet. I think the wordage is troubling, not understanding the mindset that's using it. If dark does equate to intense in this instance, then, heck, bring it on, I suppose.

As long as we get a true Superman, and not something that breaks the boundaries of the character.
 
Warner Bets on Fewer, Bigger Movies
By LAUREN A.E. SCHUKER
August 22, 2008; Page B1

Emboldened by this summer's success with "The Dark Knight," Warner Bros.' movie studio is setting a new strategy.

The Time Warner Inc. unit, like some other Hollywood studios, is planning to release fewer films into the crowded marketplace. But the studio, known for making more big, expensive movies than most rivals, plans to make even more of those -- some centered on properties from its DC Comics unit, such as Batman.

Warner Bros. Pictures Group President Jeff Robinov wants the studio to release as many as eight such movies a year by 2011. "The long-term goal of the studio is to take advantage of what has become a very global market by focusing on bigger films that require a bigger commitment," he says. Warner Bros. films released last year grossed $2 billion internationally, about 42% more than their $1.4 billion domestic take.

Mining the comic-book franchise is central to the success of Warner Bros.' strategy. Its lineup of "tent poles" -- Hollywood-speak for big movies that are the foundation of a studio's slate -- has thinned. Warner Bros. has been slow to capitalize on DC, and it now faces a rival in Marvel Entertainment Inc.'s Marvel Studios, the company behind box-office gusher "Iron Man."

Superhero films based on comic-book legends, like "The Dark Knight," have emerged as some of the strongest players in the global market, in part because they're natural candidates for tie-ups with consumer products and games that can also be marketed globally.

"Superheroes are more global than ever in today's commercial world, existing in 30 languages and in more than 60 countries," says Paul Levitz, president and publisher of DC Comics. The characters are "a world-wide export," he says.

"Films with our DC properties have the opportunity to support other divisions in the company in a way that our other movies don't," Mr. Robinov says, for example, with products such as a Superman game or toys. By 2011, Mr. Robinov plans for DC Comics to supply the material for up to two of the six to eight tent-pole films he hopes Warner Bros. will have in the pipeline by then.

While big ambitions can result in a huge payoff, they can also end in huge losses. Warner's car adventure "Speed Racer" bombed at the box office in May. The film, said to have cost as much as $150 million, has taken in only $43.9 million in the U.S. Some other big-budget Warner films, such as spy comedy "Get Smart," also have failed to meet expectations.

Earlier this year, Warner Bros. shut its two art-house labels, Picturehouse and Warner Independent Pictures. The studio currently releases 25 to 26 films a year. By 2010, Mr. Robinov plans to pare production to 20 to 22 movies a year.

A movie referred to internally as "Justice League of America," originally said to be for next summer, was planned as one of the studio's major releases. With that film, starring a superhero team, Warner hoped to spark interest in DC characters like Green Lantern who haven't yet attained the level of popularity of Batman. But script problems, among other things, have delayed the movie.

The studio said last week that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," originally slated for November release, would come out next July -- on the same weekend that "The Dark Knight" opened this year. The Batman sequel made more than $150 million in the U.S. that weekend. "We just needed a July movie," said Alan Horn, president of the studio, at the time.

Warner Bros. also put on hold plans for another movie starring multiple superheroes -- known as "Batman vs. Superman" -- after the $215 million "Superman Returns," which had disappointing box-office returns, didn't please executives. "'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," says Mr. Robinov. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned." "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009," he adds. "But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Batman and Superman movie at all."

One of the studio's other big releases planned for 2009, "Watchmen," is the subject of a high-profile copyright lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox.

Based on the premise that superheroes are real people grappling with their own problems, "Watchmen" is an apocalyptic vision of their world. Fox says it is seeking an injunction to enforce its copyright interest in the film. Last week, a federal judge ruled that it may have rights to the property. News Corp. is the parent of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co.

With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

The studio is set to announce its plans for future DC movies in the next month. For now, though, it is focused on releasing four comic-book films in the next three years, including a third Batman film, a new film reintroducing Superman, and two movies focusing on other DC Comics characters. Movies featuring Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman are all in active development.

Many of the studio's directors credit Mr. Robinov for taking Warner Bros.' films in a darker and deeper direction. Christopher Nolan, who directed "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight," says Mr. Robinov "really encouraged the logic of the villain" from "Batman Begins." That led to focusing heavily on the Joker in the sequel. "At the script stage, Jeff really wanted us to be very clear on the Joker's lack of purpose," he says.

Source: Wall Street Journal

I don't think they mean the character of Superman/Clark Kent is to go darker . (Because then you lose the appeal that represents the true essence of the Character .) However I think Warner Bros. is talking about the Villains . They can push the limit of how Menacing The Villains are portrayed .

One of the many reason both "BATMAN BEGINS & THE DARK KNIGHT" worked so well was how much of a real threat The Villains were to Batman .
 
if by "dark" they mean in an intense fight with Brainiac or Darkseid, then I'm for it. But they want it as the same "brooding tone" as TDK, which is what I'm worried about.
 
If anything, yeah, the film can have threatening, darker villains (a la TDK), but Superman HAS to remain (and perhaps struggle to remain) the bright light of the film. That's part of the appeal of his character, IMO - his ability to remain the symbol of hope and perseverance in the face of overwhelming challenges.
 
Also Both BB & TDK proved it is possible to have multiple villains in a film without overkill

In Batman Begins
The main Villain - Ra's Al Ghul
Minor Villain - The Scarecrow
The Pawn - Carmine Falcone

In The Dark Knight
Main Villain - The Joker
Minor Villain - The Scarecrow, & Two-Face
The Pawn - Sal Maroni & The Gotham Mob
 
I dont think I have another round of casting wars & news & rumors left in me :o At least here everyone agrees on one dude for Superman
 
If anything, yeah, the film can have threatening, darker villains (a la TDK), but Superman HAS to remain (and perhaps struggle to remain) the bright light of the film. That's part of the appeal of his character, IMO - his ability to remain the symbol of hope and perseverance in the face of overwhelming challenges.

:up: ITA.

I think the "darker" schtick is just a way to describe their intentions of going a new and more serious direction with the reboot. Hopefully, they are hearing all the reasons for Marvel's success being tied with people actually embracing the hearts of the characters.

This bit:
With "Batman vs. Superman" and "Justice League" stalled, Warner Bros. has quietly adopted Marvel's model of releasing a single film for each character, and then using those movies and their sequels to build up to a multicharacter film. "Along those lines, we have been developing every DC character that we own," Mr. Robinov says.

So, that seems to imply that this new Superman movie will need to fit into the same universe as the Batman films. Right? I'm not sure how that would work, I can more see them using A + B to get C.

Like the recent Batman sequel -- which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far -- Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as "The Dark Knight." Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.' DC properties. "We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it," he says. That goes for the company's Superman franchise as well.

Here's the part that I hope they tread very carefully with - Batman's extent of darkness is a very different thing than Superman's. I don't have a problem with them exploring Superman's nature, as long as they do it accurately.

Either way, it's a good day in Superman-land. :)

Now.. about who will be playing this new and improved Superman.... ? LOL!

Trip? You still have that merry-go-round jpg around? I have a feeling you're going to need it. :D
 
Charmed...My name is Jack...

(that's my way of saying, I like what you're saying...)

For Supes, you could equate "dark" to "more intense"...which is exactly what I think many have been asking for, is it not?

:word:

I think with Superman, you don't want a brooding superhero. Passionate, intense, angry, maybe.

Brooding, introspective? No.

So, from how I'm reading your response, you seem to be on the same page.

I hope that's what we get. We don't need Warner's to reinvent the wheel, just give us a more intense and faster paced story with a Superman that is entirely in character, even if they show a darker side of his personality...

:up:

"Faster, and more intense!" HA!

That'd be sweet. I think the wordage is troubling, not understanding the mindset that's using it. If dark does equate to intense in this instance, then, heck, bring it on, I suppose.

As long as we get a true Superman, and not something that breaks the boundaries of the character.

If anything, yeah, the film can have threatening, darker villains (a la TDK), but Superman HAS to remain (and perhaps struggle to remain) the bright light of the film. That's part of the appeal of his character, IMO - his ability to remain the symbol of hope and perseverance in the face of overwhelming challenges.

QFT!

I think the "darker" schtick is just a way to describe their intentions of going a new and more serious direction with the reboot. Hopefully, they are hearing all the reasons for Marvel's success being tied with people actually embracing the hearts of the characters.

Yep. Exactly.

Serene said:
Either way, it's a good day in Superman-land. :)

Now.. about who will be playing this new and improved Superman.... ? LOL!

Trip? You still have that merry-go-round jpg around? I have a feeling you're going to need it. :D

merry_go.jpg


I guess it's time to climb back onto the ride and take it for another spin.
 
It should be fun hearin all the wild rumors that'll come about this time around.:oldrazz:
 
i liek the idea oft he reboot but i don't like the idea of superman being to dark, he can have his brooding moments but if they make him to dark it won't be superman. I was thinking more they look at the loneliness of the character since he is the last son of Krypton he is gonna be lonely and also since he isnt human he'll be really lonely so i think it would be good if when the people in Metropolis find out he's an alien, like in Birthright they're afraid of him which causes Superman to be a little upset and feel like he isnt one of them and they could go through a theme of acceptance.

The beginning, Jor-El accepting Krpton's fate, Clark accepting his powers and what he has to do, and the people of Metropolis accepting him as one of their own and Lex unable to accept that he can't control Superman.
 
This is another article about the upcoming release

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1593406/story.jhtml

but take note this quote was used again:

" 'Superman' didn't quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to," Robinov said of Singer's movie, which made just $215 million domestically. "It didn't position the character the way he needed to be positioned," he continued. "Had 'Superman' worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009, but now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman. We're going to try to go dark to the extent that the character allows it."

Also the dark comments dont bother me. . . .I think that's their way of saying intended for a more mature audience.

If they said light I would be more concerned because that tends to bring to mind an overly PC movie with Batman '66 tendencies
 
Trip and I are sitting in a SV panel that's about to start. We met Michael today. Yay! He's awesome btw.
Wish you guys were here!

Oh got the PMs. Will work on it.
 
awww wish i lived in america could have gone to these comiccons and smallville panels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"