What Impact does SV have on a new Superman movie?

[GreenKToo]

I think i'd prefer Brainiac be from krypton, but I wouldnt be opposed if they went in a different direction...just have to see how they do it.

on a side note, I always thought it would be kinda kool to tie krypton in with apokolips and new genesis. maybe the kryptonians brokered the peace between NG and apokolips, against darkseid's wishes, and because of their interference, darkseid would be the one responsible for kryptons destruction later on.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Actually no it's not the idea of Superman with a kid first came about from Lois and Clark since then DC has always been trying to give him and Lois a child Rucka was the closest to doing so and was building up to it in a very nice and respectable way. However when AOS got canned that storyline got canned and Superman and Lois were then the parents of Zod's son for two years. So he is right that Superman Returns was just in many ways progression. Plain and simple And if you look at the comics a lot of elements from that movie has found its way into the comics as well.

I agree, but doesn't that make it so that the things that were in the film weren't in the comics before? 'The Last Son' arc was actually very similar to a Smallville episode from some of the early seasons where Clark and Lana found an orphan and kinda 'adopted' him. Anyway. The thing is including Jason, or giving Superman a son who he never had in the comics, is something I would call a deviation from mainstream continuity. But like I said, it doesn't matter, that sort of deviations are expected in all adaptations.

Personally while I love SV I think nether should play a role in the new movie because while SV has been on for 10 years it doesn't mean it is widely loved. For example if you look at the reviews for SR from Rotten Tomato down to Yahoo or Amazon the General Public did like the movie but it's not getting a sequel (anymore anyways). Reason being that WB wants a movie the public will love and crave more of not just like or think its okay. Which category Smallville falls under as well. That's why I always say Smallville and Superman Returns have more in common than most give it credit but have a huge split fan base among the Superman/comic fans and bot in the general public eyes viewed as I can care either way what happens to it. The difference is one cost less to make.

The real difference is that both told two different stories. If either will have an impact on the new film its on what story Goyer, Nolan and Snyder is going to tell.

 

[El Payaso]

Dude, seriously, just move on from that. A few posts back we were arguing about which was more 'true to the comics'. Thing is, every adaptation will interpret the character in its own way, adding certain elements while removing others. The point here was simply that Superman never left to find Krypton like the way he did in the film, a lot of fans would find that as something that isn't 'true to the comics'.

Are you even aware that I'm not only not the one who brought the comics accuracy subject up but that I don't even care about it because, much like you, I think movies are its own thing and adaptations have ALWAYS changed things?

And, just for the record, Batman has always blamed himself for murders committed by some of his greatest enemies. Hell, in the comics he blamed himself for Harvey becoming Two-Face.

Not to the point of having the whole Gotham Police Dept. onto him.

But btw, I just loved the way he took the blame for Dent's crime. And I couldn't care any less that it diverts from the comics storylines. Same for Superman being a father.

That's something Joey Tribianni would advocate

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Are you even aware that I'm not only not the one who brought the comics accuracy subject up but that I don't even care about it because, much like you, I think movies are its own thing and adaptations have ALWAYS changed things?...

But btw, I just loved the way he took the blame for Dent's crime. And I couldn't care any less that it diverts from the comics storylines. Same for Superman being a father.

EXACTLY And even though they aren't taken directly from the comics, they are true to the respective characters. That should be good enough for the audience. And, yeah I know you're not the one who brought it up, was just sayin we need to move on from the topic is all.

 

[stargazer]

Originally Posted by KyleDW2

Because Superman wouldn't do that. Find one time in the comics he did that. The closest I can think of is when he left in exile, and that was because he felt he could no longer serve as Superman. He also left Supergirl in charge of protecting Earth as he didn't want to leave it unprotected.

Kingdom Come, Superman II. In the first one he simply abandoned Earth for many years because his precious feelings were hurt.. (is that really very supermanly to you?), and in the movie he basically abandoned Earth to be with Lois (and very few complain about that. IMO, that's the worst thing he's done, but it was Reeve playing the part so it's ok for most it seems..) Ah, the comics.. didn't he kill in them? He has done many questionable things in the famous comics and even in some of the new animated movies so really, he hasn't been a totally perfect being like you want to believe.

Superman, when written as he is supposed to be, isn't the type to go off on a five year journey at the expense of all his personal relationships because of some half baked, poorly explained rumor he heard from unreliable Earth science. He's smarter and more responsible than that.

Like El Payaso pointed out, scientist said so, and for a movie like this, it's a good enough explanation, imo. This is just a comicbook movie not a science class, you know. He went because he felt it was his duty.

Let me ask you something. If a man is in a sexual relationship with a woman, doesn't he owe her some modicum of respect? Just the slightest courtesy like, say, telling her he will be leaving for five years? That he might not be back? You know, to keep from breaking her heart and having her worry and think all sorts of terrible things during said five years?

Superman isn't just any man, he's a superior being who has to juggle huge problems/responsibilities at the same. You would have to be him to really know how it feels to be him, to be torn between the love of a woman, her feelings and the huge responsibility and duty towards your birth planet and your adoptive world. And again, if he didn't tell her it was because he felt she couldn't take it and make things a lot harder for him, just like she did in Superman II when she learned his secret. At least it seems like movie Lois started to mature more by the end in SR. Same with Superman, who realized he had to let go and be the Superman the world needs. That was part of his emotional arc. If he didn't make any type of mistakes, then he becomes a pretty dull and one-dimensional character, imo.

That is how Superman was irresponsible to his son. Even if he didn't know he existed, he wronged him before he was ever born by not giving a damn about Lois' feelings.

No, he failed Lois in a way, but he didn't fail a son he didn't even know existed. And I think he gave a damn about her feelings, but he didn't know how to face her. Don't dramatize it too much..

Oh, so she might ask him to stay? He might not go then? Well then maybe that would have been a sign that going would have been a stupid thing to do. But maybe Lois would have still been mad at him? Then Superman must have very little confidence in Lois' ability to act as an adult. If he absolutely had to go, and she loved him, she would have understood and been able to raise Jason as Superman's son instead of having another man think he's the father, thus hurting him when he eventually finds out.

Well, that's movie Lois for you. Besides, sometimes you love someone so much and it's really hard to face them. Yes, he made a mistake and paid for it pretty much during the movie. It was part of his emotional arc like I said before. You might not like it since you like a perfect Superman, but for a lot of the mainstream and critics, it seemed like a good enough reason, and most were ok with it. The only one that really hated it were some of the hardcore comic fans. Me? I'm in favor of a compelling and human story first and foremost, so I bought it.

Also, I believe Richard always knew he wasn't Jason real father. So she didn't lie to him, he was just that nice a guy.

And before you start in on the line of logic that I know is coming, no, I don't expect Superman to be perfect. But Superman shouldn't make such simple mistakes. Hell, I wouldn't do that kind of thing. So how can I be more moral than Superman?

Eh, I'm don't know you so how do I know you would never do that? Everybody makes mistake, and lots of men do that and worse.

You know, I can sum up all of this in one sentence. Its not just his powers that makes Superman super. The people behind the next movie would do well to remember that.

Yeah, it must be really hard for storytellers to try to make Superman relatable, super and badass at the same time. No easy feat. Good luck.

And people he DID have a child in one of the Alan Moore stories. It was the one ending the silver age, I think.


And I'm done discussing this. Continue hating if you wish. I'll continue enjoying the movie.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

@ Mostpowerful, what movie? Superman Returns? You do that, I'm sure the rest of us will too. Because it's done and made. The question on everyone's mind isn't what happened in Superman Returns, it's in how that film might effect the new reboot.

Also, dude. Jason is not a character in the comics. That's what everyone is saying here. That son you're talking about is from Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow (which, by the way, would've been the thematically perfect source material for SR had Singer but considered it) and it's treated as an alternate story. Besides, it's not even Jason - the kid in SR is much more interesting than the son who appeared on that one panel. If you're arguing for SR's adherence to comics continuity you can't ignore the big fact that Lois and Clark have been married. Oh and no body's going to ignore plotholes because it's a 'comic book movie' and not a 'science class' - every one accepted the verisimilitude wayy before that.

In the next film, I think Snyder will at least keep Jason out of the picture. He might do so with the Jesus allegory too, as it's been over-emphasised both in the film franchise as well as the tv show. But that's just my opinion.

 

[KyleDW2]

Kingdom Come, Superman II. In the first one he simply abandoned Earth for many years because his precious feelings were hurt.. (is that really very supermanly to you?), and in the movie he basically abandoned Earth to be with Lois (and very few complain about that. IMO, that's the worst thing he's done, but it was Reeve playing the part so it's ok for most it seems..) Ah, the comics.. didn't he kill in them? He has done many questionable things in the famous comics and even in some of the new animated movies so really, he hasn't been a totally perfect being like you want to believe.

1) Kingdom Come is an Elseworlds story. Its not supposed to be the traditional Superman. The point of Elseworlds stories is to ask what would happen when these characters act out of character.

2) Superman II is a movie. Movies don't count. Movies are, by their nature, already adaptations. You expect them to be different. Also, it was wrong of him to do it in that movie as well. Also also, as this is a loose sequel to those two movies, you'd think Superman would have learned his lesson about responsibility by now.

3) Yes he did kill in the comics. After an alternate universe version of General Zod and his Phantom Zone friends basically destroyed the entire Earth and all life on it, Superman was forced to kill them in order to make sure they could not do it to his Earth. He then had to live with the guilt of doing such a thing, just as it may have been, and that is why he went into exile. But even in going into exile he acted responsibly, as he left Supergirl in charge and told everyone he was close to goodbye. You know, kind of the opposite of the character found in Superman Returns.

4) Oh look, its the totally perfect argument that I already argued against. But, let me say it once again. I don't want a perfect Superman. I just want a Superman who isn't an idiot.

Like El Payaso pointed out, scientist said so, and for a movie like this, it's a good enough explanation, imo. This is just a comicbook movie not a science class, you know. He went because he felt it was his duty.

Scientists? You mean Earth scientists? You mean Earth scientists who know that any phenomenon they see in the sky has already taken place thousands of years ago and all we are seeing is old photographs of past events? Did Superman, with all his journalism training, never once question how Earth scientists could see past the 28 known galaxies Superman traveled through to get a current look at Krypton? And as Lex pointed out in the movie, the Fortress crystals can pretty much do anything. Are you telling me that Jor-El, the biggest brain on Krypton, the man who knew so much about all the other stars and planets in the universe, didn't pack a telescope with his son? That just makes no damn sense. And that is why it is un-Supermanly. He just blundered blindly into the unknown, completely damaging his personal life as well as the lives of the people he loves, for no good reason and with no thought.

Superman isn't just any man, he's a superior being who has to juggle huge problems/responsibilities at the same. You would have to be him to really know how it feels to be him, to be torn between the love of a woman, her feelings and the huge responsibility and duty towards your birth planet and your adoptive world. And again, if he didn't tell her it was because he felt she couldn't take it and make things a lot harder for him, just like she did in Superman II when she learned his secret. At least it seems like movie Lois started to mature more by the end in SR. Same with Superman, who realized he had to let go and be the Superman the world needs. That was part of his emotional arc. If he didn't make any type of mistakes, then he becomes a pretty dull and one-dimensional character, imo.

Oh look the 30 year old man and woman are starting to mature emotionally. How proud I am of them. Boy do I love sarcasm.

And again with the "You just want him to be perfect!" straw man?

No, he failed Lois in a way, but he didn't fail a son he didn't even know existed. And I think he gave a damn about her feelings, but he didn't know how to face her. Don't dramatize it too much..

If he doesn't know how to tell the love of his life, the woman he is sleeping with that he has to go away for a very long time, if he is that emotionally immature, then he has no business calling himself Superman. Sure, he can lift islands, but that isn't what makes him super.

Well, that's movie Lois for you.

Which is why they're rebooting. Too many terrible characterizations from the last series.

Besides, sometimes you love someone so much and it's really hard to face them. Yes, he made a mistake and paid for it pretty much during the movie.

And so did Lois. And his mom. And his innocent son. And Richard finding out that his kid isn't his. And the world because Lex got off. Oh yeah, the price was totally worth it.

It was part of his emotional arc like I said before. You might not like it since you like a perfect Superman,

Hate...this...argument...so...much...

Really, are you even listening to my arguments?

but for a lot of the mainstream and critics, it seemed like a good enough reason, and most were ok with it. The only one that really hated it were some of the hardcore comic fans. Me? I'm in favor of a compelling and human story first and foremost, so I bought it.[/I]

Oh yeah. People liked it so much that there isn't gonna be a sequel and the studio wants to stay as far away from that project as possible. A stirring success, I must say.

Also, I believe Richard always knew he wasn't Jason real father. So she didn't lie to him, he was just that nice a guy.

Proof from the film please?

Eh, I'm don't know you so how do I know you would never do that? Everybody makes mistake, and lots of men do that and worse.

Lots of men aren't Superman.

And people he DID have a child in one of the Alan Moore stories. It was the one ending the silver age, I think.

Again, Elseworlds. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow was the send off to the Silver Age Superman. Technically, because of the Crisis, it never happened.

And I'm done discussing this. Continue hating if you wish. I'll continue enjoying the movie.

So you're just going to ignore the bad things that people say about the movie? I thought this was a discussion board.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Kyle... calm down will you? The film had its ups and downs, lets leave it at that. We're here to discuss what's to come, and how what came before might effect it. SR has that emotional arc, but it's all that it has - it's high on nostalgia and emotions that Routh and Bosworth captured only a fraction of. Now that you mention it, even in this franchise Superman 'left for the stars' after killing Zod too, so there, you have another (inferred) reason. And I'm willing to bet Superman had other reasons to leave, a big part of that was left untold and the rest edited out. And in terms of characterisation what was more important for the film was his return, not his departure. He screwed up big time, and turned into a fools errand, but 5 years later he returns and sees a world pretty much okay without him. What happens next. The only thing we can learn from that for the reboot is the role Superman plays in this world. To quote the film, why the world needs a Superman.

The reboot might ask the same question, and a good way to do it is to make said world a place that really requires a Man of Steel.

 

[KrypJonian]

Ah okay, cool then. I haven't read up on that yet. Is it a retcon or does it actually fit easily into the rest of the myth?

Not a retcon. Fits in. They basically said that all the Brainiacs we've seen in the past were probes of some sort... But the real one shows up in his skull ship and has tons of bottled cities, including Kandor.

Lots of cool stuff happens in that arc, you should definitely pick it up.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I remember looking at Greg Frank's artwork and it was amazing how much it resembled CR as well as simply screamed SILVER AGE. He's the one who worked on Johns' origin story right?

 

[stargazer]

Proof from the film please?

They didn't spell it, but that's what I got from it.

You show me proof the opposite happens in the film please?

Lots of men aren't Superman.

But he's still a man. He's still capable of failing in some way. He may be like Jesus but he's isn't him. The character has changed over time, he used to be very different when it was created. Yes, he's a really good guy, but he's a still a man.

Again, Elseworlds. Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow was the send off to the Silver Age Superman. Technically, because of the Crisis, it never happened.

SR is also an elseworld, so? Funny how to come up with reasons to defend the other stories but SR has no redeeming elements to you apparently..

So you're just going to ignore the bad things that people say about the movie? I thought this was a discussion board

I'm not ignoring anything, but I realized that you and I are never going to agree, so it comes a time when people just need to let go and move on. And that's what I want to do. I'm not interested in 'winning' this argument.