WB & DC Meet For A Summit

[J.Howlett]

"The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest."

No, the reason the Dark Knight was and is as successful as it is is because it stays true to the mythos and Batman is the only character to evolve in the DC line up. Nolan's true genius with this reboot of the Batman has to do with the approach he took. The Batman character was tailor made for the type of films audiences like today. It just took a director to see that and make it work.

Singer attempted this with Superman Returns (successfully, I think) but many rejected his capping off/evolution of the character. I still believe Singer has a fantastic sequel for Superman in that mind of his only because (and this has been said plenty of times) of what he did with X-Men with the sequel and having the complete confidence of the studio.

This wavering will make him leave. I would leave. Trust in your director's vision because I don't really care what many think, Singer moved that character forward even if he had to go back and finish what Donner started. At the end of Returns, Superman, the character, is in a far better place than he's ever been on the screen. The sequel has limitless possiblities if WB just trust Singer and see what he did with X2. That's the proof....and the fact that he picked the right leading man for the job...ala Hugh Jackman.

 

[KobiKai]

"The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest."

No, the reason the Dark Knight was and is as successful as it is is because it stays true to the mythos and Batman is the only character to evolve in the DC line up. Nolan's true genius with this reboot of the Batman has to do with the approach he took. The Batman character was tailor made for the type of films audiences like today. It just took a director to see that and make it work.

Singer attempted this with Superman Returns (successfully, I think) but many rejected his capping off/evolution of the character. I still believe Singer has a fantastic sequel for Superman in that mind of his only because (and this has been said plenty of times) of what he did with X-Men with the sequel and having the complete confidence of the studio.

This wavering will make him leave. I would leave. Trust in your director's vision because I don't really care what many think, Singer moved that character forward even if he had to go back and finish what Donner started. At the end of Returns, Superman, the character, is in a far better place than he's ever been on the screen. The sequel has limitless possiblities if WB just trust Singer and see what he did with X2. That's the proof....and the fact that he picked the right leading man for the job...ala Hugh Jackman.

As a leading man Brandon Routh doesn't cut it so SR was handicapped from the start, Singer isn't a bad director but everything in SR from Spacey's pathetic attempt at Lex to the suit was wrong. Even the humor was misguided, just take the staving dog eating its brother joke.
Not to mention dealing in real estate isn't exactly the work of a criminal mastermind.

 

[Snickers]

blah blah

 

[wellsy]

"The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest."

No, the reason the Dark Knight was and is as successful as it is is because it stays true to the mythos and Batman is the only character to evolve in the DC line up. Nolan's true genius with this reboot of the Batman has to do with the approach he took. The Batman character was tailor made for the type of films audiences like today. It just took a director to see that and make it work.

Singer attempted this with Superman Returns (successfully, I think) but many rejected his capping off/evolution of the character. I still believe Singer has a fantastic sequel for Superman in that mind of his only because (and this has been said plenty of times) of what he did with X-Men with the sequel and having the complete confidence of the studio.

This wavering will make him leave. I would leave. Trust in your director's vision because I don't really care what many think, Singer moved that character forward even if he had to go back and finish what Donner started. At the end of Returns, Superman, the character, is in a far better place than he's ever been on the screen. The sequel has limitless possiblities if WB just trust Singer and see what he did with X2. That's the proof....and the fact that he picked the right leading man for the job...ala Hugh Jackman.

Co-signed.

Singer knows what was wrong in SR, and he knows he needs to fix it. He can deliver - I have faith.

 

[Nightwing1977]

Co-signed.

Singer knows what was wrong in SR, and he knows he needs to fix it. He can deliver - I have faith.

Word. Even Kevin Smith believe the same too & he is a huge Supes fan. I have faith Singer can fix it if he change some things to make fans happy again.

 

[GreenKToo]

I have a feeling Singer won't be back and sadly, that probably means Routh as well.

 

[X Knight]

well....as they say.....first impressions always count.

For me, and many others, Singer failed to make a great first impression with SR.

Now, I'm not saying he can't come back and deliver an awesome sequel. He very well could. However, he's going to have to work 2, 3, 4 times as hard. Not only to continue pleasing the fans of SR.....but also to "win back" those of us who weren't too happy with SR.

Can he do it? It's certainly possible. But, the CONTINUED LACK OF SILENCE on the part of WB ( and even Singer ) re anything official on a sequel makes the prospects of Singer returning ( pardon the pun ) dimmer and dimmer.

It's been over 2 YEARS NOW!! And, we still haven't heard anything official or concrete. If a SR sequel was such a high priority for either WB or Singer, they'd already be announcing their plans and publicly hyping the sequel.

In fact, if one was going for a 3 year break between films ( meaning MOS would come out in 09 ), I'm sure they'd already be starting to work on the project. We'd be hearing plot details, villains, casting news, etc.

3 years is already long enough for us fans to wait......lol. If it goes on for 4 years, 5 years, and more.....then the chances of getting a direct SR sequel will decrease.

By then, SR may become an afterthought in the minds of the GA.

By then, news of a sequel might entail a lukewarm response from the GA: "Oh, they're making another Superman movie......wait who was the guy who played Superman in the last movie? Oh....yeah........now I remember......"

which kind of sucks for Routh...... I mean....he played the new SUPERMAN. But, for the GA, I'd say it's safe to say he has less star-power / name recognition than say.....Christian Bale, Tobey Maguire......even Hugh Jackman.....

 

[FlawlessVictory]

And news is, from the "Do you think MOS will happen?" thread, is that there are not even any writers working on the film now (reported by Anne Thompson of Variety). Superman has the studio heads scratching their heads on how to proceed. So another Superman looks to be a way off. I'm more than willing to wait though. I have zero interest in what Singer has started.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

The problem is that IMO at WB they aren't capable to make a reboot in 3-4 years.

Let's face reality

It's impossible to make a reboot for a 2010 release.
So we can think that the G.L. movie will be released in 2010.
2011 will be the year of TDK's sequel.
If the G.L. was a success it would be released the sequel in 2012.
2012 could even be the year for a new DC Comics franchise (Flash, Wonder Woman?)

I really don't see where is the place for Superman...

Thanks to the WB, SR is every day more comparable to B&R.
If we are lucky we have to wait 7-8 years for a new Superman movie.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Thanks to the WB, SR is every day more comparable to B&R.
If we are lucky we have to wait 7-8 years for a new Superman movie.

I'm willing to wait that long as long as they hit a home run with it. And if WB is producing other live action superhero films outside of Batman and Superman, that will definitely do more than enough to hold me over.

 

[I Am The Knight]

If MOS is out, GL is in. Could be a lot worse.

BTW, WB is adapting another DC comics based movie: "Sleeper", from Ed Brubaker. Not bad.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Green Lantern sounds awesome so i`d rather watch that instead of a Singer sequel.

 

[dark_b]

The problem is that IMO at WB they aren't capable to make a reboot in 3-4 years.

Let's face reality

It's impossible to make a reboot for a 2010 release.
So we can think that the G.L. movie will be released in 2010.
2011 will be the year of TDK's sequel.
If the G.L. was a success it would be released the sequel in 2012.
2012 could even be the year for a new DC Comics franchise (Flash, Wonder Woman?)

I really don't see where is the place for Superman...

Thanks to the WB, SR is every day more comparable to B&R.
If we are lucky we have to wait 7-8 years for a new Superman movie.

because after 2 years you dont have any official news SR ...bacame like B&R?

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

"The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest."

No, the reason the Dark Knight was and is as successful as it is is because it stays true to the mythos and Batman is the only character to evolve in the DC line up. Nolan's true genius with this reboot of the Batman has to do with the approach he took. The Batman character was tailor made for the type of films audiences like today. It just took a director to see that and make it work.

Singer attempted this with Superman Returns (successfully, I think) but many rejected his capping off/evolution of the character. I still believe Singer has a fantastic sequel for Superman in that mind of his only because (and this has been said plenty of times) of what he did with X-Men with the sequel and having the complete confidence of the studio.

This wavering will make him leave. I would leave. Trust in your director's vision because I don't really care what many think, Singer moved that character forward even if he had to go back and finish what Donner started. At the end of Returns, Superman, the character, is in a far better place than he's ever been on the screen. The sequel has limitless possiblities if WB just trust Singer and see what he did with X2. That's the proof....and the fact that he picked the right leading man for the job...ala Hugh Jackman.

Stayed true to the essence of the character yes. However this was a modernized version of the Batman mythos. The nolanverse had never been done before. This is why Batman was succesful. The character has evolved through time like you said and it made it maybe easier to translate it to a screen play. However the film wasnt succesful because it followed a mythos. It was of because those basic elements were presented in a modern setting that fit the mythos and allowed audiences to accept it.

I will disagree with Singers vision. I liked the movie to an extent but I can see why it got the reception it got. Superman the character is as outdated as its ever been. It was the same superman as Donners only done in a time where that cute romanticism no longer awes and interests the audience. Back then the movie wanted you to believe that there was a man who could fly. Today seeing someone flying in a movie with special effects is just the norm. People are that de-sensitized and sofisticated as an audience. I would like to see what he has in store for MOS because he knows he has to make up for past criticism and he can probably deliver a hard hitting movie but I do not think he will get the chance. WB has been pondering(and accepting pitches) in how to move forward with the movies, and it is my belief that they will dump singer to replicate the incredible hulk effect so that the stigma of superman returns doesnt carry into the next movie and so that they can have enough freedom to make a movie set with the same tone as the other DC properties to make a JLA movie.

 

[dark_b]

superman is not outdated. people are saying that the cape oesnt work. funny that noone says this for batman. batman is the badass in peoples mind. so he can have a cape.

superman will be popular again when the masses like what they see. and it needs to end with an epic fight. ohhh and someone needs to die. kids could take a blond kid with a gun one hes head with a guy with only half face. they will take it if richard or lois dies heheheheheheh

 

[TheBatman1979]

That is the problem. The characters and their nature are stuck in a different time. DC comics has not grown with the times.

DC has revamped and redone almost every character in it's pantheon starting in 1986. Most recently the characters have been changing due to the two major crisis storylines running in the comics. Wonder Woman is more a of a warrior thanks to Greg Rucka. Batman psychosis has been explored. Superman's search for meaning has been developed. All these things have changed along with the times. These characters have evolved, if you don't see then I can suggest some reading material.

The comments snyder has made are true. The audience is more sofisticated these days and you CANNOT sell them something that is too earnest or unrealistic becuase they simply wont buy into it. That is if, of course, getting the general public(i.e. people who are not fans of the character) to even consider checking out your movie is what you are looking for. Unfortunately that is what most of the DC catalogue is sitting at: Filling an archetype. People wearing colorful spandex with capes and masks and with outdated themes. It may have worked for linda carter in the 70s but that **** just looks straight up ridiculous in a modern movie. The common audience wont take it seriously and it is that realism and reflection of the times that DC lacks in most of its core characters and has to modify to have a succesful run in Hollywood.

So your telling me having Spider-man run around spinning webs from organic shooters after being bitten by a "Super-Spider" in Red and Blue tights is more realistic than an alien being coming to earth flying around in red and blue and having immense power.....Think about it.

Comic books are a part of popular culture which reflects itself in this form, and its themes and characters have evolved with the times for people to identify with them. Golden Age stuff has historical significance and importance but compared to what it is now it just doesnt fit. DC has not updated their characters with the times and now were having a huge problem with Superman and its difficulty to have the audience relate to the current incarnation/presentation of the character. Superman returns was basically a repeat of a 1979 CLASSIC, and this time(2008) it didnt go over too well even with the core FANS because its been done and ,well, it was just silly. People simply didnt care and take the use of this presentation of the character as one of the weak points of the latest superman flop. Note how trying to do the same thing again to please and not allienate the fans ended up upseting the fans, losing out on repeat viewings and interest of the general public, and not meeting expectations in the box office. Established movie franchises like James Bond have had to adapt with the times to keep filling the seats, and clearly it is working for them. Pierce Brosnan in a shooting scene and holding a martini in his invisible car was not going to work forever. That is, of course, if setting up multimillion dollar franchises is what WB is down with.

The reason Superman Returns didn't do well was the plot. Fans and non-fans alike will tell you that they didn't need a regurgitated script from 1978. All this character needs is a film with a fresh story. Batan Begins and the Dark Knight pull from the source material but tell fresh stories about the character. Which is why it's been so successful.

A movie is not made for audiences in the past 70 years. Its made for an audience of TODAY. The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest. There was a reason for Batman to wear a riot gear armor and not spandex with underoos. It was nessesary for you to see that it made sense. Of course there are characters like Batman and maybe even superman that must maintain their cape and cowl, but the presentation of most the characters has to be modified and upgraded for these times and someone as imersed in this like Millar will tell you the same. It is possible that the new wave of movies does this for the comics instead of the other way around.

Suspension of disbelief has to come into play with any "Fantasy" story. No matter how much you try to twist the character it's still a comic book and it's still not reality. If you want a realistic story go watch a documentary. The current Batman movies, as realistic as you say they've become, are still Fantasy. It's a guy in a black bat suit driving a tank. I mean I love Batman but come on. It's all fantasy.

I understand you want to respect the history of the character, and certainly the essense of the character has to remain, but if you want to make money and keep people interested you cannot deliver a character that is out of setting with how sofisticated and non-naive the audience is. Not if you want to cash in big at the BO. When people are faced with something too surreal or not well done they wont enjoy the movie but will spend their time critizicing or making sense of it in their minds instead of watching it. The movie of course has to be fun, and has to be well written, etc, but if DC wants to pull this off succesfully in the same way marvel is doing it the characters have to be treated with a sense of common sensibility and realism that the characters currently do not have. Not to mention it has to be done in the same degree so that they can all be in the crossover movie.

So all thre Spider-man films should have flopped as well as Iron Man and of course Captain America, Thor and The Avengers will as well, which they are basing right out of the comics (even if it is the Ultimate Universe). I don't think you need to rearange these characters as much as you think. Especially with the way they are written today. These characters are ever evolving with the times, yes even Superman. I think if Singer would read the current books he might get a feel for the character more than just watching a few 70's and 80's movies. and I think that's where the mistake was made.

 

[Ita-KalEl]

Superman is not outdated. The fact that there are thousands of fans that are discussing about a sequel/reboot after 2 years from an average movie, proves that Superman has still a huge potential. I remember a similar situation after Batman&Robin. Despite it was a box office flop and a terrible movie, fans continued to discuss about a reboot or a sequel. And now TDK is the most successful sh movie ever made.

With characters like Superman and Batman you can't miss.

 

[Cousin Itt]

And news is, from the "Do you think MOS will happen?" thread, is that there are not even any writers working on the film now (reported by Anne Thompson of Variety). Superman has the studio heads scratching their heads on how to proceed. So another Superman looks to be a way off. I'm more than willing to wait though. I have zero interest in what Singer has started.

Amen brother!

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

DC has revamped and redone almost every character in it's pantheon starting in 1986. Most recently the characters have been changing due to the two major crisis storylines running in the comics. Wonder Woman is more a of a warrior thanks to Greg Rucka. Batman psychosis has been explored. Superman's search for meaning has been developed. All these things have changed along with the times. These characters have evolved, if you don't see then I can suggest some reading material.


So your telling me having Spider-man run around spinning webs from organic shooters after being bitten by a "Super-Spider" in Red and Blue tights is more realistic than an alien being coming to earth flying around in red and blue and having immense power.....Think about it.



The reason Superman Returns didn't do well was the plot. Fans and non-fans alike will tell you that they didn't need a regurgitated script from 1978. All this character needs is a film with a fresh story. Batan Begins and the Dark Knight pull from the source material but tell fresh stories about the character. Which is why it's been so successful.



Suspension of disbelief has to come into play with any "Fantasy" story. No matter how much you try to twist the character it's still a comic book and it's still not reality. If you want a realistic story go watch a documentary. The current Batman movies, as realistic as you say they've become, are still Fantasy. It's a guy in a black bat suit driving a tank. I mean I love Batman but come on. It's all fantasy.




So all thre Spider-man films should have flopped as well as Iron Man and of course Captain America, Thor and The Avengers will as well, which they are basing right out of the comics (even if it is the Ultimate Universe). I don't think you need to rearange these characters as much as you think. Especially with the way they are written today. These characters are ever evolving with the times, yes even Superman. I think if Singer would read the current books he might get a feel for the character more than just watching a few 70's and 80's movies. and I think that's where the mistake was made.

1986 was well over 20 years ago and an update is needed yet again for the public as far as superman goes and a super nerd like Mark Millar agrees. Especially in a society that has had an exponential social and cultural change due to technology and economy more than any timeframe in history. The world has changed and the expectations of the general public most certainly have when it comes to movies. DC comics has explored with the characters psyche to keep their stories interesting but alternate dimensions, capes, masks, etc. Thats just too much golden age and not enough today. As it stands wonder woman wears a ridiculous outfit reminiscing american propaganda and not a greek amazon warrior, aquaman is still a waste of a character with a silly outfit, and every main hero has a teenager equivalent in their universe. Its just silly. This happens because these characters were induced in the 1930's and 1940's as opposed to the more relatable and less naive 1960s of the Marvel core. Ever since both have done small upgrades, but DC is still living up to that archetype and thats why it is more difficult to pen something like a DC movie down with the general public in mind.

Marvel Comics is most definitely different and more grounded in reality because it came about in a more modern and less inocent time. And that is why they have been able to adapt with ease and acceptance into a modern movie format for the audiences. Tony Stark is a genius millionare engineer, Bruce Banner is a scientist on the run with emotional issues. They are not heroes wearing colourful spandex reminiscing the same look and cape archetype of the 1940s. The Dark Knight was nothing short of a homerun for this same reason, and it is because he has been able to adapt the best into modern times due to his pulp roots. The same cannot be said for most other characters.

Try that documentary line as you try to deliver a movie like Fantastic Four and see how that doesnt work in any way. People will go and see something that has a fantastic premise but deliver in post summer of 2008 something that is far beyond real and acceptable and the movie audience will be processing how ridiculous it looks as opposed to paying attention to what is actually happening. A fantasy overly sureal approach will have a hard time bringing in Iron Man numbers. You make a good point with how well spiderman worked being how he is Marvels top card along with Wolverine (IMO), but this is a character that is dealing with a more contemporary setting as he was introduced in the America of the 1960's and is a character who teenagers can relate to as his problems are everyday teen problems, and his design is of a character who is not omnipotent and all powerful and doesnt fly or wear a cape. Thats just what Im trying to say. Even to this day people are having a hard time with Raimis love affair with the 1960's source and not with the more contemporary take on the characters and situations.

I do see where you are coming from along with a lot of fans and I sympathyse with that bcause it is a noble sentiment to keep the characters as they are. The bottom line is that if DC wants to follow the success Marvel has, it cannot corner itself into the fantasy colourful spandex superhero archetype because audiences wont buy that anymore after marvels succes and Batmans rise into a modern movie classic. The movies have to be modern and sophisticated. If they want to release movies that attract the comic fans of the character only they have that option of course, but if the idea is to keep making upper type Dark Knight type money you have to bring in the general audience including people that are not interested in the cheese fantasy aspect of a superhero movie.

btw, Superman needs a fresh story on film, a modernized costume(I ike Ultimate supermans costume), a new score, a new take on the social aspects of the character, etc. This is why I think Singer is on the way out as investors will want to pen him as the Ang Lee of the superman franchise in order to start fresh to wash Superman Returns Stigma away and to have the freedom to place all the upcoming DC movies in the same universe for a crossover flick.

 

[TheBatman1979]

1986 was well over 20 years ago and an update is needed yet again for the public as far as superman goes and a super nerd like Mark Millar agrees. Especially in a society that has had an exponential social and cultural change due to technology and economy more than any timeframe in history. The world has changed and the expectations of the general public most certainly have when it comes to movies. DC comics has explored with the characters psyche to keep their stories interesting but alternate dimensions, capes, masks, etc. Thats just too much golden age and not enough today. As it stands wonder woman wears a ridiculous outfit reminiscing american propaganda and not a greek amazon warrior, aquaman is still a waste of a character with a silly outfit, and every main hero has a teenager equivalent in their universe. Its just silly. This happens because these characters were induced in the 1930's and 1940's as opposed to the more relatable and less naive 1960s of the Marvel core. Ever since both have done small upgrades, but DC is still living up to that archetype and thats why it is more difficult to pen something like a DC movie down with the general public in mind.

Marvel Comics is most definitely different and more grounded in reality because it came about in a more modern and less inocent time. And that is why they have been able to adapt with ease and acceptance into a modern movie format for the audiences. Tony Stark is a genius millionare engineer, Bruce Banner is a scientist on the run with emotional issues. They are not heroes wearing colourful spandex reminiscing the same look and cape archetype of the 1940s. The Dark Knight was nothing short of a homerun for this same reason, and it is because he has been able to adapt the best into modern times due to his pulp roots. The same cannot be said for most other characters.

Try that documentary line as you try to deliver a movie like Fantastic Four and see how that doesnt work in any way. People will go and see something that has a fantastic premise but deliver in post summer of 2008 something that is far beyond real and acceptable and the movie audience will be processing how ridiculous it looks as opposed to paying attention to what is actually happening. A fantasy overly sureal approach will have a hard time bringing in Iron Man numbers. You make a good point with how well spiderman worked being how he is Marvels top card along with Wolverine (IMO), but this is a character that is dealing with a more contemporary setting as he was introduced in the America of the 1960's and is a character who teenagers can relate to as his problems are everyday teen problems, and his design is of a character who is not omnipotent and all powerful and doesnt fly or wear a cape. Thats just what Im trying to say. Even to this day people are having a hard time with Raimis love affair with the 1960's source and not with the more contemporary take on the characters and situations.

I do see where you are coming from along with a lot of fans and I sympathyse with that bcause it is a noble sentiment to keep the characters as they are. The bottom line is that if DC wants to follow the success Marvel has, it cannot corner itself into the fantasy colourful spandex superhero archetype because audiences wont buy that anymore after marvels succes and Batmans rise into a modern movie classic. The movies have to be modern and sophisticated. If they want to release movies that attract the comic fans of the character only they have that option of course, but if the idea is to keep making upper type Dark Knight type money you have to bring in the general audience including people that are not interested in the cheese fantasy aspect of a superhero movie.

btw, Superman needs a fresh story on film, a modernized costume(I ike Ultimate supermans costume), a new score, a new take on the social aspects of the character, etc. This is why I think Singer is on the way out as investors will want to pen him as the Ang Lee of the superman franchise in order to start fresh to wash Superman Returns Stigma away and to have the freedom to place all the upcoming DC movies in the same universe for a crossover flick.

Do you read comics? Superman was Updated in 1986, 1995, 2003 and most recently 2007 after Infinite Crisis. His look, his attitude, hell even his origin has been updated, and I don't mean 20 years ago.

These characters are up to date and relevant. You just have to actually read the books.

Iron Man and the Hulk are realistic? According to the movie Tony Stark built a electromagnet out of spare rocket parts with crap tools in a dimly lit cave, you're telling em that's realism? Bruce Banner got doused with radiation and turned into a large green giant. Exactly where is the realism?

And as I pointed out Marvel's most successful films are Spider-man a colorful spandex archetype. Remember Marvel's heroes for the most part started out only 20 years after DC's. Most of the Marvel heroes a very much a p[roduct of 60's cold war sci-fi imaginations. Not realism. The Batman films aren't even as grounded in realism as everyone wants to make them. Sure, the use science that's available for the gadgets but you could poke a thousand holes in those movies easily as far as the realistic view and scope of what's happening.

It's Fantasy, just like Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, which by the way did fine without a grounded realistic base.

Will things change in the films? Sure, they always do, but they don't need to stray as far away from the character base as your letting on.

Oh by the way, Fantastic Four bombed because the script was crap, the director was shotty and the actors were terrible, not because they needed better costumes.

 

[jmc]

1986 was well over 20 years ago and an update is needed yet again for the public as far as superman goes and a super nerd like Mark Millar agrees. Especially in a society that has had an exponential social and cultural change due to technology and economy more than any timeframe in history. The world has changed and the expectations of the general public most certainly have when it comes to movies. DC comics has explored with the characters psyche to keep their stories interesting but alternate dimensions, capes, masks, etc. Thats just too much golden age and not enough today. As it stands wonder woman wears a ridiculous outfit reminiscing american propaganda and not a greek amazon warrior, aquaman is still a waste of a character with a silly outfit, and every main hero has a teenager equivalent in their universe. Its just silly. This happens because these characters were induced in the 1930's and 1940's as opposed to the more relatable and less naive 1960s of the Marvel core. Ever since both have done small upgrades, but DC is still living up to that archetype and thats why it is more difficult to pen something like a DC movie down with the general public in mind.

Marvel Comics is most definitely different and more grounded in reality because it came about in a more modern and less inocent time. And that is why they have been able to adapt with ease and acceptance into a modern movie format for the audiences. Tony Stark is a genius millionare engineer, Bruce Banner is a scientist on the run with emotional issues. They are not heroes wearing colourful spandex reminiscing the same look and cape archetype of the 1940s. The Dark Knight was nothing short of a homerun for this same reason, and it is because he has been able to adapt the best into modern times due to his pulp roots. The same cannot be said for most other characters.

Try that documentary line as you try to deliver a movie like Fantastic Four and see how that doesnt work in any way. People will go and see something that has a fantastic premise but deliver in post summer of 2008 something that is far beyond real and acceptable and the movie audience will be processing how ridiculous it looks as opposed to paying attention to what is actually happening. A fantasy overly sureal approach will have a hard time bringing in Iron Man numbers. You make a good point with how well spiderman worked being how he is Marvels top card along with Wolverine (IMO), but this is a character that is dealing with a more contemporary setting as he was introduced in the America of the 1960's and is a character who teenagers can relate to as his problems are everyday teen problems, and his design is of a character who is not omnipotent and all powerful and doesnt fly or wear a cape. Thats just what Im trying to say. Even to this day people are having a hard time with Raimis love affair with the 1960's source and not with the more contemporary take on the characters and situations.

I do see where you are coming from along with a lot of fans and I sympathyse with that bcause it is a noble sentiment to keep the characters as they are. The bottom line is that if DC wants to follow the success Marvel has, it cannot corner itself into the fantasy colourful spandex superhero archetype because audiences wont buy that anymore after marvels succes and Batmans rise into a modern movie classic. The movies have to be modern and sophisticated. If they want to release movies that attract the comic fans of the character only they have that option of course, but if the idea is to keep making upper type Dark Knight type money you have to bring in the general audience including people that are not interested in the cheese fantasy aspect of a superhero movie.

btw, Superman needs a fresh story on film, a modernized costume(I ike Ultimate supermans costume), a new score, a new take on the social aspects of the character, etc. This is why I think Singer is on the way out as investors will want to pen him as the Ang Lee of the superman franchise in order to start fresh to wash Superman Returns Stigma away and to have the freedom to place all the upcoming DC movies in the same universe for a crossover flick.

Well said.

 

[stargazer]

"The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest."

No, the reason the Dark Knight was and is as successful as it is is because it stays true to the mythos and Batman is the only character to evolve in the DC line up. Nolan's true genius with this reboot of the Batman has to do with the approach he took. The Batman character was tailor made for the type of films audiences like today. It just took a director to see that and make it work.

Singer attempted this with Superman Returns (successfully, I think) but many rejected his capping off/evolution of the character. I still believe Singer has a fantastic sequel for Superman in that mind of his only because (and this has been said plenty of times) of what he did with X-Men with the sequel and having the complete confidence of the studio.

This wavering will make him leave. I would leave. Trust in your director's vision because I don't really care what many think, Singer moved that character forward even if he had to go back and finish what Donner started. At the end of Returns, Superman, the character, is in a far better place than he's ever been on the screen. The sequel has limitless possiblities if WB just trust Singer and see what he did with X2. That's the proof....and the fact that he picked the right leading man for the job...ala Hugh Jackman.

WORD!

 

[SatEL]

I'm willing to wait that long as long as they hit a home run with it. And if WB is producing other live action superhero films outside of Batman and Superman, that will definitely do more than enough to hold me over.

I couldnt agree more, I to am also willing to wait rather than get served another pile of ****.

 

[mego joe]

"The reason the Dark knight was succesful was because the character was presented in a modern setting with modern themes and situations in a manner that was realistic enough for the audience to suspend their disbelief and take interest."

No, the reason the Dark Knight was and is as successful as it is is because it stays true to the mythos and Batman is the only character to evolve in the DC line up. Nolan's true genius with this reboot of the Batman has to do with the approach he took. The Batman character was tailor made for the type of films audiences like today. It just took a director to see that and make it work.

Singer attempted this with Superman Returns (successfully, I think) but many rejected his capping off/evolution of the character. I still believe Singer has a fantastic sequel for Superman in that mind of his only because (and this has been said plenty of times) of what he did with X-Men with the sequel and having the complete confidence of the studio.

This wavering will make him leave. I would leave. Trust in your director's vision because I don't really care what many think, Singer moved that character forward even if he had to go back and finish what Donner started. At the end of Returns, Superman, the character, is in a far better place than he's ever been on the screen. The sequel has limitless possiblities if WB just trust Singer and see what he did with X2. That's the proof....and the fact that he picked the right leading man for the job...ala Hugh Jackman.

You've got to be joking. SUperman in a story with paternity and child custody issues is just ridiculous. That's the whole problem with SR- that's not Superman. You loose the essence of the character with that kind of characterization.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I can report that a spec script has drawn the interest of the folks over in Burbank. While it is a direct sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS, it also revamps and adds a lot of the current Superman comic book mythos into the film franchise.

http://www.batman-on-film.com/dccomics-on-film.html