If you feel this is a pointless thread, the mods know what to do. I was talking to my friend the other day about the upcoming movie and he didnt know much about superman except of what his costume looks like and his powers. I wasn't suprised at this, but it turned out that the rest of my friends didn't know his origin and havent seen the donner version of Superman, im 16 years old and so are my friends. Do you think that this movie could be understood by the average movie go-er because from there point of view (people like my friends) superman appears to be to them just another superhero action flick. Ofcourse to me its more of an epic and im sure thats what you expect of it as well, but after speaking to my friends i felt really nervous about the films success.
Nothing is ever pointless and every question is valued.
Not only will those who watched STM/Superman 2 be able to watch this movie, the average movie goer who has never seen Superman will be able to watch it as well.
Hmm. Boils down to how well the trailer resonates with audiences, and how good the movie actually is. "Epic," and even average people with no interest in superhero flicks would probably come and see it.
I, too, was shocked when some of my friends had never seen STM. I solved that problem. If the trailer delivers, I have no doubt that the "average" movie goer will line up and pay their $8-$15 ticket.
this is one of the few areas where i think this movie is safe, and i have no worries
singer can tell a good story, and a good story is usually "simple" (for lack of a better word) on the surface and the movie with its mythology should be easily attention grabbing to all types of movie viewers
Hey, you're still on time to watch Donner's Superman I (Special Edition strongly recommended) and Superman II with your friends. Superman Returns takes place after Superman II.
this is one of the few areas where i think this movie is safe, and i have no worries
singer can tell a good story, and a good story is usually "simple" (for lack of a better word) on the surface and the movie with its mythology should be easily attention grabbing to all types of movie viewers
See and I disagree here the story is the part I am most worried about because of the liberties he has taken.
I think Routh will do ok as well as Spacey and Bosswell and I expect the special effects to rock but the story well....
Lois with a child has me worried why just why did they have to add that in.
Lois engaged to Richard White Perry's nephew again jusy why
Superman gone for 6+ years again why.
I hope it is awesome just for the record so that once I have seen it I can reccomend it to my non comic book fans but we will have to wait and see.
Quote:
"Hmm. Boils down to how well the trailer resonates with audiences, and how good the movie actually is. "Epic," and even average people with no interest in superhero flicks would probably come and see it.
I, too, was shocked when some of my friends had never seen STM. I solved that problem. If the trailer delivers, I have no doubt that the "average" movie goer will line up and pay their $8-$15 ticket."
Now this I agree with for the general public, however my non comic book fan friends just won'tsee any type of comic bok movie until after I give them a review.
In my opinion, everyone knows Superman. Everyone. Ask a 5 year old, or ask a 50 year-old... they'll know Superman. So, the fanbase is huge, as far as popularity and recognision are concerned. Now, Singer's adjustments regarding the Superman mythos...
1) Lois Lane having a baby
2)... out of wedlock
3) Superman going away for 6 years
These factors might be new to the average movie goer... and might confuse them. However, that'll only be a problem for fifteen-twenty minutes. I have faith in Singer's story-telling ability, and I'm confident he'll pull the whole thing off in style... although, the whole "kid" scenario scares the sh1t outta me. If I met Bryan Singer I'd hold my hands up high, and ask... "WHY, SINGER? WHY?"
If you feel this is a pointless thread, the mods know what to do. I was talking to my friend the other day about the upcoming movie and he didnt know much about superman except of what his costume looks like and his powers. I wasn't suprised at this, but it turned out that the rest of my friends didn't know his origin and havent seen the donner version of Superman, im 16 years old and so are my friends. Do you think that this movie could be understood by the average movie go-er because from there point of view (people like my friends) superman appears to be to them just another superhero action flick. Ofcourse to me its more of an epic and im sure thats what you expect of it as well, but after speaking to my friends i felt really nervous about the films success.
Superman is an icon, and everyone knows about it, like your friends, although they havent seen the movies, they know more or less who is Superman, and this cant be said for lot of things, only the greatest icons prevail in everyones memory
Considering that the average movie goer is the intended audience, that is a good thing. Both Spider-man films relied heavily on the formula and were quite large successes. I bet the WB is wishing for that much success.
Indeed. But it need not be taken all as old hat. Singer is taking us in a new--possibly turbulent--direction with Lois and that kid. I am not thrilled about it, but I'll wait to judge. It could be great. After all, the Lois/Superman dynamic can only go so far, in so many ways. She's never had a kid (even adopted), right, so this originality I like.
It really doesn't compare, but I have to draw a line between this scenario and Battlestar Galactica on SciFi. They take the show in a new, unexpected direction every week. It's totally character driven, and that's what makes the story interesting. Nothing is clear-cut, black and white.
There is no reason this couldn't be applicable to Superman as well. The risk is that this can very, very easily lead to disaster if not handled correctly--hence the common elements kept by Singer.
I reiterate, this film is going to be suitable to the general public, as long as its entertaining. It seems like the only people to really complain about things are the fanboys and naysayers, of which nothing can be done. The movie will succeed or it won't. All I'm looking for is a fun, dramatic two and a half hour movie. My life doesnt revolve around OTHER people liking the movie, its about ME liking the movie.
Considering that the average movie goer is the intended audience, that is a good thing. Both Spider-man films relied heavily on the formula and were quite large successes. I bet the WB is wishing for that much success.
Yes dilution of art for the sake of mass consumption is the very definition of success. Or is it just the definition for hollywood? I always get the two confused.
Yes dilution of art for the sake of mass consumption is the very definition of success. Or is it just the definition for hollywood? I always get the two confused.
Both mainstream comics and Hollywood are made for mass consumption. They are businesses first and foremost. It would be ridiculous to think that they would go into any endeavor without the bottomline in mind. It's not like comic companies are shopping their wares out to low budget indie film directors. What would be the sense in that? So they can be pretentious with their story that appeals only to a niche audience?
Save the emo "non-conformity" starving artist BS for someone else. I'm not buying.
Yes dilution of art for the sake of mass consumption is the very definition of success. Or is it just the definition for hollywood? I always get the two confused.
Actually, comic books are made specifically for comic book fans. Comic books aren't made for mass consumption, they are targetted towards a very specific market. People that don't read comic books, don't buy them. Comic book publishers are much more concerned with keeping their existing market happy than striving to recruit new readers through banal, easy to digest, formulaic stories.
Everyone goes to the movies, literacy isn't required.
Hollywood doesn't think much of the average movie-goer, that's why sequels/remakes are so popular in Hollywood. They think the average movie goer is too stupid for much else, and they are right.
Actually, comic books are made specifically for comic book fans. Comic books aren't made for mass consumption, they are targetted towards a very specific market. People that don't read comic books, don't buy them. Comic book publishers are much more concerned with keeping their existing market happy than striving to recruit new readers through banal, easy to digest, formulaic stories.
Of course. That's why they do big event books and other merchandising tie-ins. Comic companies aren't interested in appealing to the mass market at all. That's just bad business sense. While it's fine to protect the audience you already have, it's not as if they don't want to attract more people from the general audience. New fans are fans as well.
Oldguy said:
Everyone goes to the movies, literacy isn't required.
And it's not like most comic books are astrophysics.
Oldguy said:
Hollywood doesn't think much of the average movie-goer, that's why sequels/remakes are so popular in Hollywood. They think the average movie goer is too stupid for much else, and they are right.
Judging from a lot of crap that is produced in comics today, I'd say the same for the average comic reader. Crap is everywhere. Shining examples of great consistent writing don't happen every month in every book.
And comics are never known for retreads or sequels. This is the land where villains never really die, where multi-verse shattering events return every decade or so, and reboots and retellings of origins are common place. Originality at its best.
Of course. That's why they do big event books and other merchandising tie-ins. Comic companies aren't interested in appealing to the mass market at all.
Compared to every comic book movie they are. Hollywood has long confused the genre with the medium, that comic books must be inherantly accessable to children, that comic books are for children.
Macarthyism forced comic books to become children's only literature because the machine fears it's appeal, it's effectiveness to comminicate ideas. Children are always eager to grow up, to do grown up things, include read comic books that at the time were intended for teenage boys, tales of sex and violence. So in order to save the children, they neutered comic books.
Comic Books have fought long and hard to regain their place as adolescent literature, PG-13 enough to clearly depict
Dr. Light raping Sue Dibny,
yes I know it's distasteful, but sometimes even in real life bad people do bad ****ing things.
Filmakers have long fought hard against the machine, to be free to create stories without having to have a margin of accessability which precludes them from ultimately being trapped as children's material.
That's what I loved about B89. Burton was a pioneer, the first one to make a grown up super-hero movie, and the people ****ing loved it. Then it slowly turned into a kid show, look what happened.
I don't hate films, or super hero movies. I hate hollywood. I hate the hollywood that thinks about the 10 year olds in the audience. Superman is an adolescent power fantasy, he's not a baby sitter of infants, just because 50 years ago, Joe Macarthy said so.
I certainly wouldn't let just any 10 year old read my Superman comics now, why do we have to share a movie with them?
Oldguy, what'd you think of sky-captain? I think every comic-book movie should be made like that but of course it wasn't too popular for some reason. I know the story wasn't very good, but damn it was fun. I don't know much about hollywood formulas though. It didn't seem like it was following anything.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
