WB/DC: It's All Part Of The Plan

[Crook]

People will see things where they want to. I didn't see anything "gay" in Superman Returns. But imagine if Lex Luthor gave Superman the choice of saving Richard or Lois and he chose Richard. What would people say if he didn't save the woman he loves, but instead saved her boyfriend? People would say that was "gay."
Somehow that never comes up with The Dark Knight, though, in a very similar scenario.

You clearly missed an important part of the film then, because Batman never intended to sacrifice the girl.

 

[Double Down]

You clearly missed an important part of the film then, because Batman never intended to sacrifice the girl.

That really isn't my point.

 

[Crook]

I know it wasn't, just pointing out an error.

 

[Double Down]

I know it wasn't, just pointing out an error.

I said it was a similar scenario. But if what happened in TDK happened in exactly the same way in SR, these reboot parrots would say it's because he is "gay." Logic doesn't matter to them. Superman never even knew he had a kid, yet he is labeled a deadbeat dad. It is ridiculous.

 

[Crook]

As I've pointed out, TDK's scenario is different. Batman saved the guy, but that's only because he was misled to believe he was saving the girl. That's not the same thing.

And I do disagree with the deadbeat dad statements. It's an unfortunate term that's stuck over the years.

 

[solidsnake86]

The more time that goes by the more I think that WB doesn't have a plan for superman, lol. I wouldn't be surprised if the character just laid dormant for a few more years and they eventually reboot it in 2012. Even though the hulk showed that a reboot may not be the best way to go I think its also important to note that the hulk as a character is not as popular as superman. I mean regardless of what people think of SR it managed to make 200 million domestically. If they actually put together an amazing reboot I think it could easily surpass that. Does anyone know when singer is actually done with valkyrie?

 

[Double Down]

As I've pointed out, TDK's scenario is different. Batman saved the guy, but that's only because he was misled to believe he was saving the girl. That's not the same thing.

And I do disagree with the deadbeat dad statements. It's an unfortunate term that's stuck over the years.

Seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I'm trying not to go into too much detail on it because some people have not seen the movie. I know exactly what you are talking about. But if anyone thinks that if it happened in exactly the same way in Superman Returns, that Superman wouldn't get tagged with "gay," they are crazy. Logic is taken away by the reboot parrots and too often they just repeat what they heard from someone else (singerman, deadbeat dad, stalkerman peeps, etc.).
I really liked both movies, but I was just illustrating how those that didn't like Superman Returns will overblow any little thing that happens.

 

[ANTOINE X]

I'm thinking maybe its not a bad idea to have a batman vs superman movie instead of superman2 or batman3. Actually they could star the movie like a 2 movie in one: for the first half of the movie we have superman2 and batman3 than 2dn half of the movie its batman vs superman.

 

[ANTOINE X]

Just forget what I just said that was lame

 

[I Am The Knight]

Just forget what I just said that was lame

Thank you

 

[ANTOINE X]

Well Unlike WB at least I tried something

 

[I Am The Knight]

Do they look like a studio with a plan?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Now that I think about it, it is pretty strange to talk about a movie for two years lol but it's an interesting subject so...I'm going to continue.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Isn't it about time you change your avvy back? I'd like to be able to read your posts in a more comfortable manner again

 

[Sam]

People will see things where they want to. I didn't see anything "gay" in Superman Returns. But imagine if Lex Luthor gave Superman the choice of saving Richard or Lois and he chose Richard. What would people say if he didn't save the woman he loves, but instead saved her boyfriend? People would say that was "gay."
Somehow that never comes up with The Dark Knight, though, in a very similar scenario.

I can see what u mean, but in Batman case, there is a very important thing that u forget (or didnt understand, i dunno) from the movie:

Batman was intend to save the Rachel. Joker gave him the wrong location on purpose, so Batman went to the wrong place and found Harvey instead of her.

 

[SatEL]

Just to correct you here for a moment, The Terminator was actually based on James Cameron's nightmare's when he was seriously ill while making Piranha 2, while he has been obsessed with the story of The Titantic since he was small child, so both of those movies DO come out of his life experiences.





So Superman has never felt isolated and alone in his entire history? Thats bull Sat-El, there have been plenty of times when Superman has felt lonliness and isolation in his long history, hell read For Tomorrow, The Journey and Godfall for the most recent examples.

Martin Scorsese?, David Fincher?, Coen brothers?, David Cronenberg?, my point is not all directors use their work as a Psychological realease. And besides what you stated about Cameron is sort of diffrent from Singer. Now unto the topic of Superman, sure he has acted diffrent in various titles but they are comic books and liberty is normally taken more so with them due to the almighty power that is the recton. Besides in Knightsend and Year Two you had Batman acting out of character sure its happened in the comics but I guarantee you if Nolan added those elements in his films people would have had huge problems with them. How I see it there is a template for the character and Singer strayed from that when he didnt have to.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Isn't it about time you change your avvy back? I'd like to be able to read your posts in a more comfortable manner again

lol I don't know, I have to ask Showtime and Matt. Not really worried about it though, I've gotten used to tossing my cookies whenever I post.

 

[SatEL]

....Someone hasn't heard of the auteur theory of film.

Doesnt that relate more to vision, so you bringing that up has no relevance to what I was stating. Besides as it seems to be some are now saying that was not Singers intention with SR therefore it makes this conversation baseless.

 

[batman44]

Seriously, I'm not disagreeing with you on this point. I'm trying not to go into too much detail on it because some people have not seen the movie. I know exactly what you are talking about. But if anyone thinks that if it happened in exactly the same way in Superman Returns, that Superman wouldn't get tagged with "gay," they are crazy. Logic is taken away by the reboot parrots and too often they just repeat what they heard from someone else (singerman, deadbeat dad, stalkerman peeps, etc.).
I really liked both movies, but I was just illustrating how those that didn't like Superman Returns will overblow any little thing that happens.

So anyone who doesn't like SR or wants reboot doesn't use logic and over blows elements they didn't like? That's an unfair statement.

I prefer a reboot and I never used the singerman or deadbeat names fyi.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^I agree, that statement should have said some or most because I have defended SR against the deadbeat dad and stalker lables and have never used Singerman because I think that it is childish.

Hell, I've argued with Matt about those very things. (Not Singerman, I've never seen him use that term.)

 

[Freddy_Krueger]

Doesnt that relate more to vision, so you bringing that up has no relevance to what I was stating. Besides as it seems to be some are now saying that was not Singers intention with SR therefore it makes this conversation baseless.

Not only to vision, but themes. Hitchcock was an auteur. Spielberg is an auteur. George Lucas thinks of himself as an auteur as does Bryan Singer. The auteur theory basically assumes that directors are their movies and vice versa (in a very basic sense). Bryan Singer indentifies with being alienated, thus he thrusts that in his films in that many of them deal with this particular theme.

Not every director is an auteur. No, James Cameron probably doesn't consider himself an auteur, but that doesn't mean that other directors don't. But the best directors tend to deal with similar themes throughout a great many of their works. Spielberg speaks a lot about the dangers of knowledge in his work; Lucas thrust his poor relationship with his father into the original Holy Trilogy; Scorsese focuses on the interconnection of people in his work; Hitchcock often spoke on the dark nature of authority and the feeling of being trapped in his work; and Bryan Singer deals with the nature of being alienated and alone in his works.

So, yes, my comment did have a base in the discussion at hand. You claimed that no director should thrust their own lives onto film. But it is the nature of the best directors to have a theme, often personal to them, that runs throughout much of their films.

 

[SatEL]

Not only to vision, but themes. Hitchcock was an auteur. Spielberg is an auteur. George Lucas thinks of himself as an auteur as does Bryan Singer. The auteur theory basically assumes that directors are their movies and vice versa (in a very basic sense). Bryan Singer indentifies with being alienated, thus he thrusts that in his films in that many of them deal with this particular theme.

Not every director is an auteur. No, James Cameron probably doesn't consider himself an auteur, but that doesn't mean that other directors don't. But the best directors tend to deal with similar themes throughout a great many of their works. Spielberg speaks a lot about the dangers of knowledge in his work; Lucas thrust his poor relationship with his father into the original Holy Trilogy; Scorsese focuses on the interconnection of people in his work; Hitchcock often spoke on the dark nature of authority and the feeling of being trapped in his work; and Bryan Singer deals with the nature of being alienated and alone in his works.

So, yes, my comment did have a base in the discussion at hand. You claimed that no director should thrust their own lives onto film. But it is the nature of the best directors to have a theme, often personal to them, that runs throughout much of their films.

I am tired of discussing this all I can say is whatever Singer was attempting obviously was not to everyone's liking, perhaps he should stay away from comic book movies all together.

 

[stargazer]

You know, reading some thread on Singer some minutes ago, I have the fear that given his sexual inclination, everything Berlanti will do, from casting to costume to story plot choices, will be tagged by forum trolls as "gay".
Said by people who enjoy reading stories about man in leotards.

Reeeeeally ironic, right?

Oh believe me, I'm gay and I notice this kind of stuff all the time. What's funny is that Singer's X-Men films are FAR more a gay allegory than SR, but since the majority of fans dug those films they chose not to focus on that. Now SR, love it or hate it, is never played up as any kind of gay allegory at all, and yet that one is labeled "gay" simply because why now?? Cuz Brandon Routh is hot and looks good in spandex? ( Both things that Superman should always be anyway) If anything, SR is Singer dealing with his issues on being adopted.

I seriously don't see ANYTHING close in SR to a gay allegory. Those homophobic 'individuals' who see something like that in SR are in my opinion really disturbed individuals and worth of pity, seriously. SR was about feeling alone and finding your place in the universe, and about fathers and sons. It was also a love story, a bittersweet one, like Casablanca.

 

[stargazer]

. Now all the stuff about Jason and whatnot could be seen as Singer working through some adoption issues, but I'm dying to know what the obvious gay allegory is in SR. Seriously.

Well, for instance, 'some of these individuals' say that the plane rescue is a huge gay allegory... the plane representing a huge penis... unbelivable, I know. I read this at the CBR forums. I can provide a link if requested.

It's not as overt as X2, but basically the theme of identity, loneliness, and isolation. It's not something exclusive to homosexuality, but it's certainly shared with the predicaments Superman endures both in and out of costume.

I think those are very universal themes that most if not all teenagers go through, for instance.

 

[stargazer]

Ummm.....name me a director of any note who doesn't do this? I mean, Close Encounters and ET are all about Steven Spielberg's parent's divorce, American Graffiti and the original Star Wars are about George Lucas' desire to get out his small town and do something significant with his life...the list goes on and on. Any director that doesn't bring his personal issues into his work at some point is pretty much going to always be regarded as a hack.

Well said. It's called 'their vision'.